Commonwealth v. Sullivan (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-090-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 10‑P‑1791 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. JOSEPH D. SULLIVAN. No. 10‑P‑1791. Middlesex. March 18, 2013. ‑ July 10, 2013. Present: Rapoza, C.J., Carhart, & Hines, JJ. Attempt. Kidnapping. Idle and Disorderly Person. Practice, Criminal, Postconviction relief, Assistance of counsel. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 27, 2007. The cases were tried before Hiller B. Zobel, J.; motions for a new trial and to vacate a conviction, filed on November 2, 2010, were considered by Sandra L. Hamlin, J. Dennis A. Shedd for the defendant. James D. Kerr, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. HINES, J. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping, G. L. c. 274, § 6, and accosting or annoying a person of the opposite sex, G. L. c. 272, § 53.[1] On appeal, he argues that (1) the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to support the convictions; (2) his motion to vacate the attempted kidnapping conviction was wrongly denied; and (3) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during the course of the trial. We affirm in part and reverse in part. 1. Sufficiency of the evidence. The defendant challenges the jury’s verdict on the attempted kidnapping charge on the ground that the Commonwealth failed to prove the required elements of the offense: a specific intent to kidnap and an overt act in furtherance of the offense. G. L. c. 274, § 6. See Commonwealth v. Rivera, 460 Mass. 139, 142 (2011). He also claims that his conviction of annoying or accosting a person of the opposite sex must be reversed because the Commonwealth failed to prove that his actions were “offensive” and “disorderly,” as required by the statute. G. L. c. 272, § 53. We review a claim of sufficiency of the evidence under the oft-repeated Latimore standard, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979). Under this standard, the jury could have found the following facts. At approximately 9:30 P.M. on September 28, 2007, R.M., the victim, was walking alone on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge. She was returning to her dormitory on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus after an evening class. The defendant, who was headed toward Boston in his vehicle, swerved toward R.M. and said, “Hey little girl, you look so tired. Come on over. […]