Commonwealth v. Joyner (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-025-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC‑11349 COMMONWEALTH vs. JUSTIN JOYNER. Plymouth. October 8, 2013. ‑ February 14, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Robbery. Evidence, Fingerprints, Expert opinion, Scientific test. Practice, Criminal, Argument by prosecutor, Probation, Revocation of probation. Due Process of Law, Probation revocation. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 2, 2010. The case was tried before Merita A. Hopkins, J. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on May 2, 2003, and May 23, 2003. A proceeding for revocation of probation was heard by Merita A. Hopkins, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Emily A. Cardy, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Carolyn A. Burbine, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. DUFFLY, J. A latent fingerprint left by a masked intruder who had demanded the contents of the cash register at a Brockton gasoline station convenience store led to the defendant’s arrest for armed robbery. The defendant was thereafter convicted by a Superior Court jury of armed robbery, G. L. c. 265, § 17. The defendant appeals from his conviction and from the revocation of his probation which resulted therefrom. The defendant’s principal claim on appeal concerns the fingerprint evidence, which was the primary evidence tying him to the crime. He argues that the Commonwealth was required to, but did not, present evidence of the standard used to match fingerprints and the statistical significance of a fingerprint match in accurately identifying an individual and, therefore, that the fingerprint evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the robber. The defendant argues also that his conviction must be overturned because there was no evidence of force, a required element of armed robbery,[1] and because the prosecutor misstated the evidence in her closing argument, creating a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the defendant contends that his due process rights were violated when the trial judge, who conducted a probation revocation hearing after the trial, prohibited him from presenting evidence on his own behalf. We affirm the conviction and conclude also that there was no error in the revocation of the defendant’s probation. Background. The evidence would have warranted the jury in finding […]