Opinion
11-P-1856
10-13-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. RAFAEL BONILLA.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such 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. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant was indicted on a charge of manslaughter. Following a jury-waived trial, during which the Commonwealth presented a theory that the defendant was guilty either as a principal or as a joint venturer, the judge entered a general finding of guilty. On appeal, the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of manslaughter as a principal, and that because the judge did not specify the theory of liability, the conviction must be reversed. We disagree.
As required by Latimore, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, drawing reasonable inferences therefrom, to determine whether "any rational trier of fact could [find] the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to meet this burden, and the inferences drawn "need only be reasonable and possible; [they] need not be necessary or inescapable." Commonwealth v. Merola, 405 Mass. 529, 533 (1989), quoting from Commonwealth v. Beckett, 373 Mass. 329, 341 (1977).
Facts. We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. In the early hours of June 11, 2005, the victim and a few coworkers were sitting outside a residence. Around 1:30 A.M., the victim's friend came by and he and the victim were talking on the sidewalk. At about this time, a group of people walked by and looked at the victim and his friend in a "mean way." Among that group was the defendant, a black male with corn rows wearing a white T-shirt and gray sweatpants, and the defendant's brother, a "chubby" black male wearing a black shirt. A short time later, the group walked by again and while the victim stood only a few feet away, the victim's friend and the defendant's brother engaged in a heated verbal altercation, standing within feet of each other. The victim's friend then turned his attention to the defendant, who was also only a few feet away. After words were exchanged, the defendant punched the victim's friend in the face, causing him to stumble back and fall to one knee. The defendant then pulled a twelve-inch knife from the right side of his waist, and headed towards the victim, who stood just a few feet away. The victim's friend, meanwhile, spotted a metal pipe on the ground, and turned to pick it up. As he turned back around, he saw only the defendant, knife in hand, next to the victim, who was stumbling backwards. The defendant then lunged at the victim's friend, who struck the defendant in the head with the pipe, knocking him to the ground. The victim was also on the ground, bleeding from his chest, struggling to breathe. The defendant's friends helped him to his feet and they fled the scene. An ambulance was called and after being transported to the hospital, the victim was pronounced dead from a single stab wound to the chest that perforated his heart.
Insufficient evidence. The Commonwealth proceeded against the defendant on theories of principal and joint venture liability. At the close of the Commonwealth's case, and again at the close of all the evidence, the defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty on the charge of manslaughter, without differentiating between principal and joint venture liability. The judge denied both motions and entered a general finding of guilty on a "verdict slip." On appeal, the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a finding that he stabbed the victim and thus acted as principal.
Under Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449, 468 (2009), "rather than examine the sufficiency of the evidence separately as to principal and joint venture liability," we instead "examine whether the evidence is sufficient to permit a rational [fact finder] to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly participated in the commission of the crime charged, with the intent required to commit the crime."
The Supreme Judicial Court has made clear that on appeal of a conviction, regardless of whether, as here, a defendant's trial took place before Zanetti, supra, was decided, all sufficiency claims pertaining to joint venture liability "should be evaluated conformably with [the principles] we clarified in the Zanetti case." Commonwealth v. Jansen, 459 Mass. 21, 28 n.20 (2011), citing Zanetti, supra at 468.
When viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom provide sufficient grounds to sustain the manslaughter conviction. The judge could have found that after the defendant punched the victim's friend, the defendant pulled out his knife, turned towards the victim, and stabbed him in the chest before the victim's friend hit the defendant with the pipe. We are not persuaded that the lack of a witness to the actual moment of stabbing or the presence of other possible assailants precludes the defendant's guilt.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Kafker, C.J., Trainor & Massing, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
Clerk Entered: October 13, 2015.