Opinion
10-P-2075
12-14-2011
COMMONWEALTH v. JEFFERSON BARROS.
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
The defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an assault and battery. In reviewing this issue we must of course consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Sandlor, 368 Mass. 729, 740 (1975). There was evidence, including particularly the testimony of the victim, sufficient to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence on a motion for a required finding, questions of credibility are resolved in the Commonwealth's favor. Commonwealth v. Medina, 380 Mass. 565, 573 (1980). Commonwealth v. Dilone, 385 Mass. 281, 286 (1982). Cramer v. Commonwealth, 419 Mass. 106, 110 (1994). Further, we note also that the victim's account of an assault and battery, whatever its claimed weaknesses, was corroborated by the fact that a shard of glass was found on the bed. Credibility determinations are for the finder of fact. The defendant has provided no sufficient basis for disturbing these determinations. The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
By the Court (Graham, Rubin & Wolohojian, JJ.),