COMMONWEALTH v. MEDEIROS, FEBRUARY 11, 2010, SJC
Rape, Joint Enterprise, Inconsistent Verdicts
The defendant was convicted of rape of a child under the age of sixteen with force, aggravated rape and assault and battery. On appeal the he argued that the conviction of "aggravated rape by reason of joint enterprise" should be reversed because the jury simultaneously acquitted the co-defendant, the sole other member of the joint enterprise. The SJC agreed. The Court, while acknowledging that it is well established Massachusetts law that “mere inconsistency” in verdicts will not necessarily render a guilty verdict erroneous, found that the present case constituted an instance where the inconsistency was sufficiently troubling so as to require judicial intervention in the form of a reversal. Aggravated rape by reason of joint venture requires the united act of two or more persons to constitute an offense. The co-defendant’s acquittal reflected either a failure of the Commonwealth to prove the united act element of the crime or a misunderstanding by the jury as to the necessity of that proof. Under either explanation, the SJC found that reversal of the conviction was warranted.
