Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
When a routine police call in Boston’s North End leads to the discovery of a rifle, magazines of ammunition, and a defendant who readily admits he has no license to carry, most would assume that a conviction would stand. However, the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s May 2025 decision in Commonwealth v. Ferreira Artur shows how quickly a case can unravel when the Commonwealth’s evidence can’t meet every element of the crime.
The Facts of the Case
Around 4:45 a.m. on November 28, 2021, Boston police officers responded to a radio call in the North End. They found the defendant, Julio C. Ferreira Artur, seated on a sidewalk with a blanket over his shoulders. A blue bicycle and two black trash bags sat within five yards of him, and officers believed he was intoxicated. Shining a flashlight into one bag, an officer spotted what looked like the barrel of a gun. The weapon was secured, and Ferreira Artur was handcuffed and frisked. Inside his jacket pockets officers discovered two magazines containing thirteen rounds of ammunition. Because the defendant spoke only Portuguese, a State Trooper fluent in that language delivered a Miranda warning and conducted a brief interview. According to the Trooper, Ferreira Artur admitted he found the rifle in the trunk of an unlocked white car and that he lacked a license to carry.
At trial in the Boston Municipal Court, the Commonwealth presented a detective from the firearms analysis unit as its sole ballistics expert. He testified that the barrel measured twenty-two and one-eighth inches and that the gun successfully fired a test round, leading him to classify it as a “rifle under Mass General Law.” The jury convicted Ferreira Artur of possession of a rifle without a license, possession of an uncased, unloaded rifle on a public way, and possession of ammunition without a Firearm Identification (FID) card.
The Legal Framework
Massachusetts divides firearms into specific categories. Under G. L. c. 140, § 121, a rifle must (1) have a rifled bore, (2) feature a barrel at least sixteen inches long, and (3) fire a shot or bullet with each pull of the trigger. For charges under G. L. c. 269, § 10(a) (unlawful possession) and § 12D(b) (uncased rifle on a public way), the Commonwealth must prove every element—including the rifled bore—beyond a reasonable doubt. The same precision applies to ammunition-only charges under § 10(h)(1); the Commonwealth must show the defendant lacked an FID card, a point clarified in the Supreme Judicial Court’s 2023 Guardado decisions.
Trial judges use model instructions to explain these elements to juries. If a critical element is omitted or misstated, a conviction cannot stand unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why the Appeals Court Reversed Two Convictions and Vacated a Third
On appeal, the court reversed the defendant’s conviction, citing several problems with the prosecution’s case.
Missing evidence of a rifled bore. The detective’s testimony covered barrel length and operability but never addressed the rifle’s bore. On cross-examination he explained that a rifle “has a rifle bore” while a shotgun “normally contains a smooth bore,” yet he never stated whether he examined this weapon’s bore or found rifling inside. The court held that because rifling is not a feature visible to lay jurors—especially given safety rules that prevent anyone from looking down a barrel—the jury had no basis to infer the bore was rifled. Without that first element, no rational fact-finder could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun was a rifle. Both rifle-possession convictions were reversed, the verdicts set aside, and judgments entered for Ferreira Artur.
Faulty instruction on the ammunition charge. After Commonwealth v. Guardado, the absence of an FID card is an essential element of possessing ammunition under § 10(h)(1). The trial judge did not instruct the jury that it had to find Ferreira Artur lacked such a card; instead, the Commonwealth merely introduced evidence of no card. Because the error was constitutional and not harmless, the Appeals Court vacated the ammunition conviction. Unlike the rifle counts, the Commonwealth may retry that single charge if it chooses.
The court declined to reach additional defense arguments about knowing possession and intoxication instructions, finding them moot in light of the reversals.
What This Decision Means for Future Firearm and Ammunition Cases
Ferreira Artur underscores two practice points: every element is truly essential, and jury instructions must keep pace with developing case law. Even when a weapon looks like a rifle, the Commonwealth must present testimony or physical evidence establishing every statutory component, including technical aspects like rifling. After Guardado, trial judges must tell jurors that the absence of an FID card is part of the Commonwealth’s burden. Skipping that step risks a new trial. For defendants and their counsel, the opinion is a reminder to scrutinize the Commonwealth’s proof line by line. For prosecutors, it highlights the need for thorough expert testimony that tracks statutory language verbatim.
Have You Been Charged with a Firearm Offense?
Firearm prosecutions move fast, and the smallest oversight can make or break a case. If you or a loved one has been accused of possessing a gun or ammunition in Massachusetts, call the Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy at (617) 367-0450 for a free, confidential consultation. Our Boston firearms defense lawyer will review every element, challenge weak evidence, and fight for the best outcome—because your freedom and record deserve nothing less.