Opinion
13-P-1798
03-06-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. QUOC V. DOAN.
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
This case arises from an attack by the defendant and his friend upon four college students. After a bench trial, the defendant was found guilty of three counts of assault and battery, each pertaining to a different victim. On appeal, he argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions relating to John Mayo and Christopher Stranix.
Applying the familiar standard articulated in Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979), we conclude that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to satisfy a rational trier of fact of each element of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant and his friend got out of their car in the early hours of March 29, 2009, and began yelling at the four victims, who were walking down the street. They asked if the victims "were talking shit" or "want[ed] to start shit." The defendant and his friend approached the victims aggressively, verbally accosted them, threw a water bottle at them, and challenged them to a fight. The friend punched Mayo more than once in his side, after which the defendant and his friend returned to their car, only to then drive back to the victims. They then charged toward Mayo and Kane Kanagawa, attacking Kanagawa, who fell to the ground. Mayo pulled the defendant from Kanagawa and there was a physical altercation between the defendant and Mayo. Stranix pulled the defendant's friend away from Kanawaga and engaged in a fight with the friend. During that fight, the defendant's friend punched Stranix. When the fight ended, the defendant and his friend returned to their car and sped away together. The defendant was in the same car when he was picked up by police later that evening. The defendant's statements to police demonstrated his consciousness of guilt.
In short, the evidence permitted the judge to find that the defendant and his friend jointly carried out a coordinated and unprovoked attack on four college students whom they did not know, and that Mayo and Stranix were assaulted and battered as part of that joint venture. See Commonwealth v. Zannetti, 454 Mass. 449, 466 (2009) (elements of joint venture). The judge reasonably found that although the Commonwealth failed to prove the defendant shared the specific intent to stab Mayo with a knife, he did share the intent to commit the assaults and batteries. The evidence in this regard was undeniably sufficient. Commonwealth v. Welch, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 271, 274 (1983), quoting from Commonwealth v. McCan, 277 Mass. 199, 203 (1931) ("The classic definition of assault and battery is 'the intentional and unjustified use of force upon the person of another, however slight'").
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Fecteau, Wolohojian & Massing, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
Clerk Entered: March 6, 2015.