Com. v. Jansen

Commonwealth v. Jansen
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
March 2, 2011
459 Mass. 21

Rape, Joint Enterprise, Double jeopardy, Joint Venturer, Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA), Consent

The grand jury returned three indictments against the defendant for aggravated rape. The first indictment charged the defendant with aggravated rape for the sexual intercourse he committed with the alleged victim. The second and third indictments charged the defendant with aggravated rape for the sexual acts committed by his alleged joint venturers. At trial, the jury was not able to reach a unanimous verdict, so the judge declared a mistrial. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictments arguing that because the evidence presented at the trial was legally insufficient, double jeopardy barred a retrial. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion as to all of the charges except for the lesser included charge of rape in the first indictment. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Com v Medeiros, SJC, 2/11/10

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.