Commonwealth v. Wright (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-116-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 13-P-2000 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. LOUANN WRIGHT. No. 13-P-2000. Suffolk. February 24, 2015. – August 18, 2015. Present: Rapoza, C.J., Berry, & Maldonado, JJ. Practice, Criminal, Venue, Dismissal. Larceny. Fraud. Public Welfare, Food stamp benefits. Department of Transitional Assistance. Transitional Aid for Families with Dependent Children. Statute, Construction. Complaint received and sworn in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on June 28, 2012. A motion to dismiss was heard by Raymond G. Dougan, Jr., J. George Barker, Assistant District Attorney (Helle Sachse, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth. Claudia Lagos (Dana Alan Curhan with her) for the defendant. MALDONADO, J. A complaint was brought against the defendant in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court (Central Division) for one count of larceny over $ 250 by a single scheme, G. L. c. 266, § 30, and four counts of public assistance fraud, G. L. c. 18, § 5B. These charge the defendant with attesting to false information on public benefits applications she submitted to the Department of Transitional Assistance (department), which resulted, according to the Commonwealth, in the department’s distribution to her of unwarranted benefits. The defendant resides in Somerville and applied for benefits at the department satellite office located in Revere. Neither the defendant’s Somerville residence nor the department’s Revere satellite office is in the city of Boston. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss in the Central Division for lack of venue and, following an evidentiary hearing, a judge allowed the defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint. The Commonwealth’s appeal followed. Concluding that venue properly lies in Boston, where the department “used” the defendant’s purported false statements to calculate her public assistance award, we reverse. Background. We summarize the uncontroverted facts as alleged in the complaint and presented at the evidentiary hearing.[1] In the application for complaint, the Commonwealth’s investigator reported that the defendant applied for and recertified eligibility for public benefits on at least five separate occasions between 2006 and 2011.[2] She submitted these forms at a department satellite office located in Revere. The defendant listed between three and six household members on these forms but did not include her husband.[3] Nor did she account for his income. From 2006 to 2011 — the relevant time frame — the defendant also filed joint tax […]