Opinion
14-P-214
12-12-2014
COMMONWEALTH v. MICHELLE E. THOMAS.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
After a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant was convicted of leaving the scene of property damage. On appeal she asserts insufficiency of evidence; we affirm.
We are unpersuaded by the defendant's assertion that the fact finder could not infer that she failed to report a motor vehicle accident when it was reasonably possible for her to do so. Viewing the undisputed facts under the familiar Latimore standard, Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979), the defendant reasonably could be found to have had the opportunity to notify the police or some other third party during the thirty to forty minute-period after her truck collided with a utility pole and before the police arrived at her apartment in the course of their investigation. The evidence also supports a finding that she failed to do so. The defendant did not leave a note in her abandoned vehicle identifying herself. She did not knock on any doors or attempt to locate individuals residing near the accident, even though she conceded that the downed utility pole had created a hazardous condition in the vicinity. The evidence in the record also would have permitted the fact finder to conclude that her passenger's cellular telephone was working, notwithstanding his statements to the contrary. The fact that documentation left in the abandoned vehicle enabled the police to identify the owner, but not necessarily the operator at the time of the accident, does not satisfy the statutory requirement.
For these reasons and those additionally set forth in the Commonwealth's brief at pages 6-10, we conclude that the conviction is based on findings that are supported by the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Trainor, Grainger & Carhart JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
Clerk Entered: December 12, 2014.