Commonwealth v. Ford (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-151-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-1327 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. KENNETH FORD. No. 13-P-1327. November 18, 2014. Dangerous Weapon. Evidence, Knife. Arrest. Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury. Following a two-day jury trial in the Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department, the defendant was convicted of carrying a dangerous weapon, a knife, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10(b).[1] He appeals, claiming the judge erred by: (1) failing to enter a required finding of not guilty, as the evidence was insufficient to submit to the jury, and (2) instructing the jury that the knife was per se dangerous. We reverse. 1. Sufficiency of the evidence. In the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676–677 (1979), the jury could have found the following facts. Sometime after 10:00 P.M. on November 1, 2011, Jose Romero reported to police that, when walking home after work on Blue Hill Avenue, two men in a van offered him a ride, which he accepted. One man was reported to have a knife, the other a gun. Romero said that the men threatened him with the weapons and robbed him of his cash. After taking this report, the police agreed to drive Romero home. Just prior to arriving at Romero’s home, a radio transmission was broadcast that the suspects in the robbery had been stopped. The officers brought Romero to the location and he identified both individuals, including the defendant. The defendant was arrested and transported to the police station for booking. Police had searched the defendant at the time of the initial stop and no weapon was located. During booking, a second search of the defendant revealed a knife in his pocket. At some point, the police learned the defendant had active warrants. In order to prove the defendant guilty of carrying a dangerous weapon in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10(b), the Commonwealth was required to show that he was either carrying one of the weapons enumerated in the statute or that, “when arrested upon a warrant for an alleged crime, or when arrested while committing a breach or disturbance of the public peace,” he had on his person “a billy or other dangerous weapon other than those herein mentioned.” G. L. c. 269, § 10(b), as amended by St. 1986, c. 581, § 1. On appeal, the parties agree that the […]