Opinion
11-P-1113
03-07-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. MIGUEL RENOVALES.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant, Miguel Renovales, argues that the evidence was insufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he assaulted the victim with a gun. Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). We are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that the defendant engaged in objectively menacing conduct by threatening force with a handgun. Commonwealth v. Gorassi, 432 Mass. 244, 247-248 (2000). Contradictory testimony creates a credibility issue that is for the fact finder, in this case, the trial judge, to resolve. Commonwealth v. Boucher, 438 Mass. 274, 275-276 (2002).
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Cypher, Cohen & Wolohojian, JJ.),