Commonwealth v. Mattier (and five companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-065-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11924 SJC-11960 COMMONWEALTH vs. BRANDEN E. MATTIER (and five companion cases[1]). Suffolk. January 7, 2016. – May 13, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Larceny. False Impersonation & Identity Fraud. Fraud. Conspiracy. Attempt. Search and Seizure, Arrest. Evidence, Identity, Fraud, Conspiracy. Jury and Jurors. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Jury and jurors, Argument by prosecutor. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on August 29, 2013. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Kenneth W. Salinger, J., and the cases were tried before Jeffrey A. Locke, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted applications for direct appellate review. Rebecca A. Jacobstein, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Branden E. Mattier. William S. Smith for Domunique D. Grice. Randall E. Ravitz, Assistant Attorney General (Gina M. Masotta, Assistant Attorney General, with him) for the Commonwealth. HINES, J. The defendants, Branden E. Mattier and his half-brother Domunique D. Grice, were convicted by a jury on indictments charging one count each of conspiracy to commit larceny, G. L. c. 274, § 7, and attempted larceny, G. L. c. 274, § 6. Mattier also was convicted on an indictment charging one count of identity fraud, G. L. c. 266, § 37E. The charges stemmed from an attempt by the defendants to defraud The One Fund Boston (One Fund) of approximately $ 2 million by claiming that a long-deceased aunt had been injured in the 2013 bombing at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.[2] The judge imposed on each defendant a State prison sentence of from three years to three years and one day on the conspiracy count and three years’ probation on the attempted larceny count, to run from and after the committed sentence. Mattier was sentenced to an additional concurrent probationary term for his conviction of identity fraud. The defendants appealed, and we granted their applications for direct appellate review.[3] Although the appeals were not formally consolidated, we have treated them as such, given the substantial congruence of the issues raised by the defendants.[4] Mattier contends that his conviction of identity fraud fails as a matter of law because the charged conduct is insufficient to meet the elements of the statute. Both defendants claim that the judge erred in (1) denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained […]