COMMONWEALTH v. SEMEDO, February 4, 2010, Appeals Court
Required finding, Joint venturer
The defendant was tried separately as a joint venturer in a felony murder. He argued the evidence was insufficient to convict. The SJC disagreed. The issues in the case were whether the defendant was in the van at the time of the murder and whether he shared the intent to commit the robbery. The van was stopped with the defendant inside it an hour after the murder. There was circumstantial evidence that connected him to the homicide which included the physical description provided by a witness, the money found in the defendant’s jacket (which was half the money taken from the victim and which was wrapped in brown paper counting bands of the type used by the victim’s wife to wrap the money for deposit), and the time line of the events on the day of the murder.
The Court also found sufficient evidence that the defendant shared the intent to commit armed robbery. The Court held that since there was evidence that the perpetrators effectuated the robbery while the car was operating, the jury could reasonably conclude that a firearm or other dangerous weapon had to be employed and that the defendant was aware of it. From the evidence that one half of the proceeds of the robbery was in the jacket which by inference belonged to the defendant, a finding was warranted that the defendant assisted in the commission of the robbery while sharing the requisite mental state.
Deliberation of jury
The defendant argued the judge should have declared a mistrial after he received two reports from the jurors that they were deadlocked. The SJC disagreed. After deliberating for nine hours the jury sent a note stating they were deadlocked on two charges. Five hours later they reported they were still deadlocked. Since it was near 5pm the judge sent the jurors home. The following day the jury was read the Tuey-Rodriguez instruction. Later that day they returned the verdicts
