Opinion
14-P-1881
12-09-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. IAN S. MACHADO.
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 April 28, 2014, the defendant pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property and was sentenced to one year of probation. Four months later, during a traffic stop, the police found a trash bag full of new razor blades in a vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger. The razor blades, which were in boxes bearing labels from the grocery store chain known as Stop & Shop, had a value of approximately $1,500. The defendant admitted to the police that the blades were his and that he had stolen them from local Stop & Shop stores (and perhaps also from a local Walmart store). After an evidentiary hearing, a District Court judge found that the defendant had committed a second receiving stolen property violation and on that basis revoked his probation. We affirm.
There was ample evidence on which the judge could have found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was knowingly in possession of stolen property. See generally Commonwealth v. Cromwell, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 662, 664 (2002) (discussing the elements of receiving stolen property). Indeed, the defendant admitted this. In contending that the evidence nevertheless was insufficient, the defendant asks us to apply the rule, applicable in the criminal context, requiring some corroboration of a confession to a crime. See Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 59, 63 (2009). The defendant acknowledges that no appellate case has applied the corroboration rule to the probation revocation context, but he argues that this should be done based on "policy" considerations.
We need not reach the question whether a confession needs to be corroborated in the probation violation context, because such a rule would be satisfied here in any event. The requirement of corroborating evidence does not impose an exacting burden. As we said in Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, "when it comes to evaluating the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence, the standard we apply requires 'merely that "there be some evidence, besides the confession, that the criminal act was committed by someone, that is that the crime was real and not imaginary."'" Ibid., quoting from Commonwealth v. Villalta- Duarte, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 821, 825 (2002). Assuming arguendo that the corroboration rule applied here, the sheer quantity of the razor blades, the manner in which they were stored, and the fact that they bore labels from the grocery chain from which the defendant admitted to having stolen them provided all the corroboration that could have been required. In addition, the Commonwealth relayed statements from the manager of one local Stop & Shop store that shoplifters frequently target razor blades there because of their small size and high value, subsequently "returning" them for cash.
Some of the razor blades were traced to that specific Stop & Shop store.
The defendant's other arguments require little discussion. The extent to which the defendant's confession was undercut by his potential reason for lying or his possible intoxication was for the fact finder to resolve.
The defendant did not seek suppression of his statement on the ground that recent drug use rendered it involuntary.
Order revoking probation affirmed.
By the Court (Kafker, C.J., Milkey & Sullivan, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: December 9, 2015.