DISCLAIMER:

These summaries of case decisions are intended for informational purposes only. They are not intended to be interpretations of the law, nor do they encompass the subtleties of each case. Therefore, reference to the original text is indispensable.



Friday, November 1, 2013

Lisa Conserve's summary of "Commonwealth v. Benitez"

Commonwealth v. Benitez
464 Mass. 686


Facts:  On appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court of the defendant’s first degree murder, the defendant claimed that his conviction of armed robbery should be vacated because the predicate offense of armed robbery merged with the felony-murder conviction

Luis Daniel Rodriguez died as a result of a single gunshot wound to the chest .  Earlier that same day, the defendant had contacted the victim to purchase heroin for Santos, the defendant’s friend.  The driver, Jesus Antonio Marquez, drove the defendant and Santos to purchase the heroin. While on the way, the defendant suggested they rob the victim.  Santos immediately agreed and asked for a weapon, which was then provided to him by the defendant.  Marquez parked the vehicle down the street from where the defendant and Santos were supposed to meet the victim.  The defendant and Santos left the vehicle and after a brief confrontation with the victim, Santos shot him while the defendant stood nearby.  The defendant and Santos ran from the scene, got into the car with Marquez, and left the scene. 

Issue #1: Was there sufficient evidence of the defendant’s participation in a joint venture with Santos to rob the victim to support his convictions?
            Yes. The defendant claimed he did not possess the intent to rob the victim, which is one of the requirements for a person to be convicted of joint participation in an armed robbery.  The court reasoned that the defendant did intend to rob the victim because the driver Marquez testified that the defendant was the one who proposed the robbery, provided Santos with the gun, and got out of the car          with Santos to be the lookout.  As such, the defendant actively participated with the knowledge and intent needed to fulfill the elements of this charge. 

Issue #2:  Did the trial judge erroneously admit evidence of a prior bad act of Santos at their joint trial, which gave rise to a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice?
             The judge erred in admitting the evidence that the defendant and Santos punched the former boyfriend of the defendant’s girlfriend.  The court reasoned that the fighting incident had no relevance to the defendant and Santos’s friendship in regards to the case at hand.  Although the judge made this error, it was insufficient to reverse the defendant’s convictions and did not give rise to a substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice. 

Issue #3:  Should the judge have instructed the jury on the elements of felony-murder in the second degree?
            No. The defendant did not request instruction on felony-murder in the second degree, and the judge stated he would give the instruction and invited both defense counsels to object to the instruction, neither did so.  The court decided that no reasonable juror would view the evidence presented as supporting a charge of armed assault with intent to rob rather than armed robbery .

Judgment: The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction for felony murder in the first degree, and the court vacated the conviction of armed robbery because it was duplicative of the murder conviction.  The case was then remanded to the Superior Court for dismissal of that indictment.

Written on 7/8/13