Commonwealth v. Akara
465 Mass. 245
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Philip Gadsden was threatened with a gun on an MBTA Orange Line train; two shots were fired as passengers fled, injuring Hawa Barry and killing her unborn child.
- Defendants Akara and Green were indicted for first-degree murder and related offenses based on video, witness interviews, and surveillance evidence.
- Commonwealth alleged a joint venture between Akara and Green: one fired intending to shoot Gadsden, the other assisted.
- Trial evidence included gun possession prior to the shooting, flight together after the incident, and post-incident efforts to deter witnesses.
- Jury convicted each defendant of first-degree murder under an extreme atrocity or cruelty theory and multiple attendant offenses; severance and evidentiary objections were raised on appeal.
- Court affirmed convictions and denied extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of joint-venture evidence | Gadsden v. Latimore supports joint venture against both | Insufficient evidence Akara/Green knowingly participated | Yes, sufficient evidence for joint venture findings |
| Severance of trials | Joint defenses would prejudice each defendant | Severance necessary for fair trial | Not an abuse of discretion; substantial independent evidence supported guilt of each defendant |
| Jury instruction on joint venture and extreme atrocity/cruelty | Instructions incorrectly framed joint-venture theory/ Cunneen factors | Instructions were flawed/unsupported | Instructions proper; Cunneen framework adequately conveyed extreme atrocity/cruelty elements |
| Bruton issue regarding Akara’s statement via Sanford | Admission of Akara’s statement violated Bruton | Mitigated by Sanford’s correction; non-improper | No Bruton violation given correction and limiting instruction |
| Admission of gang evidence | Gang evidence relevant to joint venture and motive | Risk of prejudice outweighs probative value | Not reversible error; evidence properly limited and probative of relationship/motive |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (2009) (joint venture elements and liability standards)
- Commonwealth v. Norris, 462 Mass. 131 (2012) (intent required for murder; transferred intent doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (Latimore standard for reviewing challenged evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Pike, 431 Mass. 212 (2000) (jury may convict based on joint venture without identifying shooter)
- Commonwealth v. Cunneen, 389 Mass. 216 (1983) (enumerated Cunneen factors for extreme atrocity/cruelty)
- Commonwealth v. Garabedian, 399 Mass. 304 (1987) (victim’s suffering and conscious awareness considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 460 Mass. 409 (2011) (Cunneen factor guidance for extreme atrocity/cruelty)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (federal rule on codefendant statements)