Opinion
No. 11–P–992.
2012-11-29
COMMONWEALTH v. Jose CRUZ.
By the Court (WOLOHOJIAN, BROWN & CARHART, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Upon review of the briefs and record appendix, and after oral argument, it has not been made to appear that the Commonwealth has met its burden of proving the defendant guilty. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). Viewing the evidence—albeit mainly circumstantial—in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, Commonwealth v. Grant, 418 Mass. 76, 77 (1994), we are not able fairly to conclude the elements of any of the offenses charged have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See and compare Commonwealth v. Campbell, 378 Mass. 680, 686 (1979).
Although the significant evidence that the defendant possessed both keys to the vehicle provides some probative force, it is not sufficient, in our view, to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the defendant's motion for required findings of not guilty should have been allowed.
Judgments reversed.
Verdicts set aside.
Judgments for defendant.