Posts tagged "Angier"

Commonwealth v. Squires; Commonwealth v. Angier (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-050-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   SJC-12086 SJC-12087   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JOHN F. SQUIRES, THIRD. COMMONWEALTH  vs.  STEVEN E. ANGIER.       Norfolk.     October 5, 2016. – March 27, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.[1]     Possession of Burglarious Instruments.  Death.  Practice, Criminal, Death of party.       Complaints received and sworn to in the Dedham Division of the District Court Department on February 4, 2013.   The cases were tried before James H. McGuiness, Jr., J.   After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.     Kathleen J. Hill for Steven E. Angier. Carolyn L. Hely, Assistant District Attorney (Michael P.J. McGee, Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the Commonwealth. Patrick A. Michaud for John F. Squires, III.          HINES, J.  After a joint[2] jury trial in District Court, the defendants, John F. Squires, III, and Steven E. Angier, were convicted of walking on a railroad track, G. L. c. 160, § 218, and possession of burglarious instruments, G. L. c. 266, § 49.[3]  The complaints arose from Norwood police officers’ discovery of the defendants walking on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) commuter rail train tracks near the Norwood central train station.  After the officers searched the defendants and found tools, gloves, and two walkie-talkies tuned to the same channel, the defendants were arrested for walking on train tracks and possession of burglarious instruments.  Squires moved for required findings of not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth’s case, and both defendants so moved at the close of all evidence; the motions were denied.[4]  The judge sentenced each defendant to a term of imprisonment in a house of correction for two and one-half years and imposed on each defendant a fine of one hundred dollars.[5]  The defendants separately appealed, claiming, among other things, that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions of possession of burglarious implements.  The Appeals Court affirmed in separate unpublished opinions, Commonwealth v. Squires, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (2016); Commonwealth v. Angier, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 1117 (2015).  We allowed the defendants’ applications for further appellate review. After the cases were entered in this court, but before oral argument, Angier’s counsel filed a suggestion of death and moved to vacate his convictions.  The Commonwealth opposed the motion, arguing that under Commonwealth […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 27, 2017 at 4:21 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,