From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Borja

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Jun 19, 2012
82 Mass. App. Ct. 1101 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)

Opinion

No. 10–P–1308.

2012-06-19

COMMONWEALTH v. Adriana BORJA.


By the Court (WOLOHOJIAN, SMITH & AGNES, JJ.).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The defendant, Adriana Borja, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to her two convictions of receiving stolen property in violation of G.L. c. 266, § 60. The “question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v.. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), quoting from Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–319 (1979). “The elements of receiving stolen property are (1) buying, receiving, or aiding in the concealment of stolen or embezzled property, (2) knowing it to have been stolen or embezzled.” Commonwealth v. Cabrera, 449 Mass. 825, 828 (2007).

Here, the defendant, along with another woman, was seen in a Macy's department store wearing dark sunglasses and carrying large bags which appeared to be stuffed to the top. Both women were seen carrying jackets that subsequently disappeared from their hands. After walking to the exit of the Macy's, the defendant and the woman ran from the exit and got into a minivan, which they proceeded to back into another car several times before speeding off in reverse. In the process, they almost hit a Macy's employee. The police were called and they found and pursued the van with their sirens on. The van initially pulled over before speeding off again. As the police continued to pursue the van, a number of items were thrown out of the passenger side window.

These items were later recovered and returned to various clothing stores throughout the same shopping mall in which the Macy's was located. There was testimony from employees of some of these stores indicating that the items had not been sold that day. The judge was warranted in inferring that the defendant was an active participant in the crime and had knowledge that the property in her possession or under her control was stolen. See Brief for the Commonwealth at 7–12. The defendant's arguments to the contrary are without merit.

The defendant had entered the passenger side of the car at the store.

Judgments affirmed.




Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Borja

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Jun 19, 2012
82 Mass. App. Ct. 1101 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Borja

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH v. Adriana BORJA.

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Date published: Jun 19, 2012

Citations

82 Mass. App. Ct. 1101 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
969 N.E.2d 185