Opinion
15-P-427
03-29-2016
COMMONWEALTH v. TODD GOODWIN.
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
On January 15, 2015, following a jury trial, the defendant, Todd Goodwin, was found guilty of assault and battery on a family or household member. He now appeals from that conviction. We reverse.
Background. At trial, over the defendant's objection, the Commonwealth played a 911 call from November 11, 2014. The caller stated that her "boy friend . . . Todd Goodwin" had "just beat the shit out of [her]." When asked by the dispatcher if the perpetrator was still present, the caller stated, "I don't know--he might be" and "I don't know. He probably left." Officer Daniel Smart responded to the call. He testified that he tried to locate Todd Goodwin based upon the description provided after he arrived at the scene, but he was unable to do so. At trial, Officer Smart never identified the defendant as the Todd Goodwin who was the perpetrator. Likewise, the Commonwealth's only other witness, Officer Eugene Scanlon, the Lawrence police department's keeper of the records for incident reports and 911 calls, did not identify the defendant.
Discussion. The defendant argues that the trial judge erred by denying his motion for a required finding of not guilty and his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as the Commonwealth failed to identify him as the person who committed the crimes. In reviewing the denial of a motion for a required finding of not guilty, we review the evidence presented up to the point that the Commonwealth rested and determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was enough for "a reasonable jury to infer the existence of each essential element of the crime charged, beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Rivera, 460 Mass. 139, 141 (2011). "No essential element of the crime may be left to a jury's conjecture, surmise, or guesswork." Ibid. Identity is an essential element that the Commonwealth must prove. See Commonwealth v. Koney, 421 Mass. 295, 302 (1995).
The defendant also argues that the trial judge erroneously relied upon his conviction in this case during a probation violation hearing. However, no appeal from the order revoking his probation is before us, and we, therefore, do not consider the issue.
Neither of the Commonwealth's witnesses identified the defendant as the Todd Goodwin who committed the acts alleged in the 911 call. The defendant was not arrested contemporaneously with the officer's response to the 911 call, and the Commonwealth did not call the officer who later arrested the defendant to identify him. At trial, Officer Smart testified that he was given a description of Todd Goodwin, but he did not explain what that description was.
The mere use of Todd Goodwin's name in the 911 call was insufficient to identify him, because the Commonwealth offered no other confirmatory facts or circumstances. See Herman v. Fine, 314 Mass. 67, 68-69 (1943); Commonwealth v. Doe, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 297, 299 (1979) ("Slight confirmatory evidence is needed to establish identity of persons where there is identity of names"). In short, the Commonwealth did not offer sufficient evidence to prove the identity of the defendant; therefore the judge erred in denying the defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty.
Deciding as we do, we do not address the other issues raised by the defendant.
Judgment reversed.
Verdict set aside.
Judgment for the defendant.
By the Court (Kafker, Cohen & Blake, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: March 29, 2016.