Commonwealth v. Mendez (and 11 companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-034-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11869 SJC-11870 COMMONWEALTH vs. CHARLES MENDEZ (and eleven companion cases[1]). Bristol. October 11, 2016. – February 22, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Homicide. Firearms. Robbery. Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Felony-Murder Rule. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Reasonable suspicion. Search and Seizure, Reasonable suspicion. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Motion to suppress, Trial of indictments together, Argument by prosecutor, Instructions to jury. Witness, Credibility. Jury and Jurors. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on January 7, 2011, and February 11, 2011. Pretrial motions to suppress were heard by Renee P. Dupuis, J., and a motion for joinder was also heard by her; and the cases were tried before D. Lloyd Macdonald, J. Cathryn A. Neaves for Charles Mendez. Jennifer H. O’Brien for Tacuma Massie. Yul-mi Cho, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. BUDD, J. On the evening of November 18, 2010, Edward Platts was shot and killed while sitting in his motor vehicle at a housing complex in Fall River. The defendants, Charles Mendez and Tacuma Massie, were each indicted on charges of (1) murder in the first degree[2]; (2) carrying a firearm without a license; (3) carrying a loaded firearm without a license; and (4) armed robbery. They additionally were charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and armed robbery on separate indictments in connection with a separate incident involving a different individual. The motion judge denied the defendants’ motions to suppress evidence seized in connection with their warrantless stop. At the conclusion of a joint jury trial in September, 2013, the defendants were convicted of all charges. Each defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Both assert the following errors: the denial of his motion to suppress; the joinder at trial of the indictments for two separate incidents; and portions of the prosecutor’s closing argument. Massie further argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the armed robbery and felony-murder. Each defendant separately asserts additional errors pursuant to Commonwealth v. Moffett, 383 Mass. 201, 208 (1981). We affirm the defendants’ convictions and decline to exercise our extraordinary power under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Background. We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to […]