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
