Opinion
No. 11–P–1858.
2013-01-28
COMMONWEALTH v. Kevin SUTTON.
By the Court (BERRY, FECTEAU & CARHART, JJ.).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
After a jury-waived trial, the defendant was convicted of one count of larceny over $250, one count of forgery, and one count of uttering a false check. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial judge erroneously denied his motion for a required finding of not guilty because the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. We affirm.
Background. A reasonable factfinder could have determined the following. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676–677 (1979). On August 13, 2010, the defendant cashed a check payable to himself and drawn on an account of Solutions At Work (Solutions) at the Cambridge Trust Company (bank). The check was dated August 13, 2010, and in the amount of $891.35. The wording, “100 Payroll,” is inscribed at the top of the check. The check appears authorized by Rosemary McCrebbin, via her stamped signature. The bank teller, upon receiving the check, confirmed the defendant's identity by matching his information listed on the check with his driver's license, which he presented. The defendant received $891.35 from the teller and then left the bank. Travian Williams has been employed by Solutions as a program coordinator for the past four years. He testified that Solutions is a fifteen-person company, that he knows every person employed there, and that there has not been a change in employees since he began. Williams further testified that he does not know the defendant, that he never met him, and that at least since he began employment at Solutions, the defendant has not worked there. Moreover, in his capacity as program coordinator, Williams administers payroll checks and keeps them in his office. He stated that the checks issued by Solutions have not changed in the past four years; they have a “white back” and “blue tint.” Williams testified, after viewing the check presented by the defendant, that he has never seen a Solutions payroll check of that resemblance.
Rosemary McCrebbin is a Solutions employee and responsible for authorizing checks by the organization.
Discussion. At the close of the Commonwealth's evidence and at the end of trial, defense counsel moved for a required finding of not guilty. The motion was denied and the trial judge found the defendant guilty on all counts. On appeal, the defendant challenges the weight of the Commonwealth's evidence of intent on all counts, as well as whether the check was false, forged, or altered and if so, whether that was known by the defendant. We review to determine whether “ any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime[s] beyond a reasonable doubt” (emphasis in original). Id. at 677, quoting from Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–319 (1979).
There was no evidence presented at trial by the defendant.
The defendant argues that “no rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the necessary elements of” the crimes charged.
Based on the evidence introduced at trial, it is undisputed that the defendant never worked for Solutions; yet, he presented the teller with a payroll check made payable to him. Further, Williams testified that he keeps all company payroll checks in his office and that he has never seen a check produced by Solutions that resembled the one presented by the defendant. Thus, a reasonable factfinder could infer that the defendant knew he was not entitled to the funds and that the check was forged. See Commonwealth v. O'Connell, 438 Mass. 658, 662–664 (2003). For the same reasons, one could infer that the defendant had the specific intent to deprive Solutions of its property. See Commonwealth v. Green, 66 Mass.App.Ct. 901, 902–903 (2006).
Judgments affirmed.