Commonwealth v. Doyle (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-039-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 11‑P‑1779 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. CHRISTOPHER DOYLE. No. 11‑P‑1779. Suffolk. October 11, 2012. ‑ March 4, 2013. Present: Graham, Vuono, & Hanlon, JJ. Breaking and Entering. Burglarious Implements. Destruction of Property. Malicious Injury to Property. Malice. Evidence, Hearsay, State of police knowledge. Constitutional Law, Confrontation of witnesses. Practice, Criminal, Hearsay, Confrontation of witnesses, Instructions to jury. Complaint received and sworn to in the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on October 26, 2010. The case was tried before Robert E. Baylor, J. Patricia E. Muse (Daniel J. Procaccini with her) for the defendant. Taylor Shutt (Donna Jalbert Patalano, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. HANLON, J. After a jury trial, the defendant, Christopher Doyle, was convicted of breaking into a depository in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony, possession of burglarious tools, and malicious destruction of property over $ 250.[1] On appeal, he contends that (1) the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to prove that the object of the breaking, an automated teller machine (ATM), was a functioning depository, or to prove that its destruction was malicious, (2) the admission of hearsay statements made by a nontestifying witness violated the defendant’s confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, (3) the trial judge failed to give necessary instructions as requested on the issues of deficiencies in the police investigation and a missing witness, and (4) the trial judge abused his discretion when he refused the defendant’s request that he reinstruct the jury on reasonable doubt when answering a jury question. We affirm the breaking into a depository and possession of burglarious tools convictions and reverse the malicious destruction of property conviction. 1. Background. The jury heard the following evidence. At 3:00 A.M. on October 26, 2010, the Boston police department received a call for a bank alarm tripped at the ATM in the vestibule of the Meetinghouse Hill Bank in the Dorchester section of Boston. When Officers Omar Cepeda and Eddy Pena arrived, they looked through the glass window of the bank and saw that the cover of the ATM was lifted. A man on a bicycle, later identified as Matthew Pickett, immediately approached them and pointed to the defendant “maybe 25 to 50 feet away” walking up the […]