Commonwealth v. Tejeda - 473 Mass. 269, 41 N.E.3d 721 (2015)

Rule:

Under Massachusetts' common law of joint venture, a defendant is guilty of armed robbery if he or she knowingly participated in the commission of the crime with the required intent, and either was armed himself or herself or knew that an accomplice was armed. If, during the course of that robbery, for instance, an accomplice were to shoot at a police officer who arrived on the scene but not kill the officer, the defendant could not be found guilty of the crime of assault with intent to murder a police officer unless the defendant knowingly participated with the accomplice in the shooting with the intent to kill, even if the assault were the natural and probable consequence of the armed robbery. However, if that same accomplice had shot and killed the police officer during the course of the robbery, Massachusetts' common law recognizes an exception to the ordinary rule of joint venture criminal liability: the defendant could be found guilty of the police officer's murder on the theory of felony-murder, even if the defendant did not knowingly participate in the shooting or intend to harm the police.

Facts:

Defendant, together with Christopher Pichardo and Stephane Etienne, met with Frederick Reynoso, who was to sell them marijuana. They traveled to a residence where the transaction was to take place. Pichardo, Etienne, and Reynoso entered the home through a basement door. Defendant remained outside in the parked vehicle. Once the bags of marijuana were handed to Pichoso, the latter pulled out a gun; Reynoso responded by pulling out his own gun. A gun battle between Pichoso and Reynoso ensued, resulting in the death of Pichardo. A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of murder in the second degree on the theory of felony-murder, with armed robbery as the underlying felony. The jury also convicted the defendant of the armed robbery of Santiago, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 17; home invasion, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 18C; and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32C (a). The defendant, having earlier moved for a required finding of not guilty at the close of the evidence, moved after trial for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on all his convictions. The judge allowed the motion for a required finding of not guilty on the felony-murder conviction, but denied the motion as to the remaining convictions. The Commonwealth appealed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to the felony-murder conviction; the defendant cross-appealed as to the surviving convictions.

Issue:

1. Did the trial court err in allowing defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty on a felony-murder charge?
2. Was there sufficient evidence to find defendant guilty of the other charges, i.e., armed robbery and home invasion?

Answer:

1) No. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the trial court did not err in allowing defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty on a felony-murder charge because where, as here, a defendant joined with others to commit an armed robbery, he could not be convicted of murder on theory of felony-murder for the killing of his accomplice by someone resisting the armed robbery. Nonetheless, the Court averred that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of armed robbery and home invasion (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, §§ 17, 18C, respectively), as it allowed a reasonable jury to infer that his two accomplices planned to purchase steal drugs from the victim, that he drove them to and from the robbery, and that he knew one of them had a gun and might need to use force to overcome any resistance by the drug sellers.