Commonwealth v. Bonilla (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-037-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 14-P-1348 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. LUIS BONILLA No. 14-P-1348. Suffolk. October 1, 2015. – March 30, 2016. Present: Cypher, Milkey, & Hanlon, JJ. Larceny. Uttering Forged Instrument. Practice, Criminal, Required finding. Complaint received and sworn to in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on March 5, 2013. The case was tried before Raymond G. Dougan, Jr., J. Edward Crane for the defendant. Helle Sachse, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. HANLON, J. Following a jury trial, the defendant, Luis Bonilla, was convicted of larceny over $ 250 by a single scheme (count 1), and uttering a false instrument (count 2); he was sentenced to two one-year concurrent sentences to the house of correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgment in part and reverse in part. Background. On February 26, 2013, the defendant deposited six $ 5,000 checks, one into each of six newly opened bank accounts at Metro Credit Union, for a total amount of $ 30,000. The next day, the defendant returned to Metro Credit Union and withdrew $ 600 in cash, $ 200 from each of three of the new accounts: $ 200 was the maximum amount available for each new account until the original deposit checks cleared. Sometime after the defendant withdrew the $ 600, Metro Credit Union was informed that all six of the initial checks had been dishonored and were being returned to the bank. Three of the returned checks were drawn from the defendant’s TD Bank account, which had been opened only one week earlier; the other three checks, from his East Boston Savings Bank account, were returned because the account had been closed. Thereafter, the defendant made no attempt to pay back the money he had withdrawn. In addition, some of the identification information that the defendant had provided to Metro Credit Union when he opened his accounts was incorrect.[1] Specifically, both the social security number and mother’s maiden name were incorrect. 1. Larceny. In order to sustain a conviction for larceny, the Commonwealth must prove “that a defendant took the personal property of another without the right to do so, and ‘with the specific intent to deprive the other of the property permanently.’ Commonwealth v. Murray, 401 Mass. 771, 772 […]