Opinion
No. 11–P–1343.
2012-12-5
COMMONWEALTH v. Monique S. BROWN.
By the Court (CYPHER, GREEN & HANLON, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant contends that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support her convictions on various charges arising out of an incident that occurred on April 28, 2010. Her claim is without merit, as it rests on a fundamental misapprehension of the legal sufficiency of evidence.
As the Commonwealth observes in its brief, the question of evidentiary sufficiency is one of law. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 25(a), as amended, 420 Mass. 1502 (1995). Accord Commonwealth v. Montanez, 388 Mass. 603, 605 (1983); Commonwealth v. Nadworny, 396 Mass. 342, 353–354 (1985), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 904 (1986). The standard governing our review is that enunciated in Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), quoting from Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–319 (1979): “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” (emphasis in original). In her reply brief, even after detailed explanation of the relevant standard set forth in the Commonwealth's brief, and detailed application of that standard to the evidence at trial in the present case, the defendant persists in her assertion that the evidence was insufficient because the testimony of the victim “1) is implausible in light of the absence of corroborating eyewitnesses; 2) contains significant contradictions; and 3) is unsubstantiated by independent evidence.” But credibility of witnesses, and resolution of inconsistencies in testimony, is the exclusive province of the trier of fact, and there is no requirement that witness testimony be corroborated or otherwise substantiated by other evidence. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Mayne, 38 Mass.App.Ct. 282, 285 (1995).
For these, and the other reasons set forth in the Commonwealth's brief at pages twelve to twenty-three, the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions.
Judgments affirmed.