Posts tagged "1108614"

Commonwealth v. Golding (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-086-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   13-P-768                                        Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  CHRISTOPHER GOLDING. No. 13-P-768. Middlesex.     May 5, 2014. – July 23, 2014. Present: Grasso, Grainger, & Milkey, JJ. Firearms.  Controlled Substances.  Constitutional Law, Vagueness of statute.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on April 30, 2009.   The case was heard by Thomas P. Billings, J.     Stephen Neyman for the defendant. Hallie White Speight, Assistant District Attorney (David Solet, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth.      GRAINGER, J.  Following a jury-waived trial in the Superior Court, the defendant was convicted of possession of a machine gun while in the commission of a felony (G. L. c. 265, § 18B), two counts of possession of a machine gun (G. L. c. 269, § 10[c]), and possession of a silencer (G. L. c. 269, § 10A).[1]    The judge found that the defendant had participated in an exchange of drugs for firearms with an undercover special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).  We are unpersuaded by the numerous evidentiary, statutory, and constitutional arguments the defendant raises on appeal, and affirm the judgments. Factual background.  The judge could have found the following:  On the basis of information received from a confidential informant, an ATF agent arranged for the controlled purchase of a hand grenade from the defendant.  The grenade that the defendant sold to the informant contained no live explosives; confronted thereafter with the defective nature of his merchandise, thedefendant offered to “make up the grenades” in a meeting with the informant and an undercover ATF agent at which the participants discussed the possibility of supplying machine guns and a silencer to the defendant.  The negotiations began with a proposed exchange of weapons; thereafter the defendant offered to provide marijuana for the machine guns.  The participants eventually agreed that the defendant would provide payment for the firearms in the form of OxyContin pills.  After the defendant had taken possession of the firearms, he was arrested.  We refer to additional facts as they pertain to the issues raised on appeal.       Sufficiency of the evidence.  The defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of possession of a machine gun while in the commission of a felony, G. L. c. 265, § 18B.[2]  The basis of his argument is that the defendant’s receipt of the machine guns from the undercover officer as payment […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 23, 2014 at 2:33 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,