Posts tagged "1105915"

Commonwealth v. Tavares (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-059-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   14-P-190                                        Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  DANIEL D. TAVARES. No. 14-P-190. Barnstable.     December 9, 2014. – June 5, 2015.   Present:  Cypher, Wolohojian, & Blake, JJ. Uttering Forged Instrument.  Tendering a False Note.  Larceny. False Pretenses.  Practice, Criminal, Required finding. Evidence, Inference, Identity.     Complaints received and sworn to in the Barnstable Division of the District Court Department on October 31, 2011.   The cases were tried before Joan E. Lynch, J.     Kevin S. Nixon for the defendant. Julia K. Holler, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     CYPHER, J.  A jury convicted the defendant, Daniel D. Tavares, of possessing counterfeit currency, uttering a counterfeit note, and larceny by false pretenses of property not exceeding $ 250 in value.  The defendant appeals and asks us to hold that the judge erred by denying the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty.  The defendant argues, as he did below, that there was insufficient evidence of identity, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, to support the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who had uttered a counterfeit note and committed larceny by false pretenses.  The defendant also argues, for the first time on appeal, that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he knew the $ 100 bills in question were counterfeit.[1]  We disagree. 1.  Factual background.  The jury could have found the following facts.  On October 30, 2011, at approximately 9:00 P.M., a man asked for $ 30 of gasoline at West Main Gas, a gasoline station in Barnstable.  The man was driving a black sport utility vehicle (SUV).  There was a woman in the passenger seat. The gasoline station employee, Sherif Nakhla, pumped the gasoline as requested.  The man had a $ 100 bill in his hand.  Nakhla gave the man $ 70 in cash, and then the man handed Nakhla the $ 100 bill.  Nakhla examined the $ 100 bill and realized “it d[id]n’t look like money at all.”  Nakhla told the man that the $ 100 bill was not real.  The man responded by saying, “I don’t know, man,” and then drove off.  Nakhla tried to catch the SUV but was unable to do so.  At trial Nakhla did not identify the defendant as the gasoline station customer, and provided only a very general […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 5, 2015 at 8:04 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,