Posts tagged "Reyes"

Commonwealth v. Reyes (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-012-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;     SJC‑11270   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  AMAURY REYES. Essex.     October 1, 2012.  ‑  January 29, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.   Firearms.  Constitutional Law, Vagueness of statute, Right to bear arms.  Due Process of Law, Vagueness of statute.  Practice, Criminal, Directed verdict, Instructions to jury.  Words, “Secured,” “Locked container.”       Complaint received and sworn to in the Salem Division of the District Court Department on April 26, 2010.   The case was tried before Matthew J. Nestor, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.     Michael A. Laurano for the defendant. Marcia H. Slingerland, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Keith G. Langer, for Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc., amicus curiae, submitted a brief.       CORDY, J.  The defendant, Amaury Reyes, was convicted of improperly carrying a firearm in a motor vehicle in violation of G. L. c. 140, § 131C (a) (carrying statute), and unlawfully storing a firearm (after leaving it in his motor vehicle) in violation of G. L. c. 140, § 131L (a) and (b) (storage statute).  On appeal, the defendant argues that the storage statute is unconstitutionally vague in violation of his right to due process of law.  He also contends that if the storage statute requires that a firearm stored in a locked motor vehicle be rendered further inoperable by locking it in an additional container or through the use of a tamper-resistant trigger lock, it unlawfully hinders his right to use the firearm in self-defense.  Additionally, the defendant posits that there was insufficient evidence at trial to support his convictions under both the storage and carrying statutes.  Finally, he asserts that the judge’s jury instruction on the elements of the storage statute was deficient in that it failed to provide guidance on what qualifies as a “locked container.”  Based on these errors, the defendant asserts that he is entitled to either directed verdicts in his favor or a new trial.   We conclude that the defendant’s arguments with respect to the constitutionality of the storage statute are without merit:  the statute is neither impermissibly vague nor violative of his  right to self-defense under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  We also conclude, however, that the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction under the carrying statute and […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 30, 2013 at 6:06 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,