Commonwealth v. Aldrich (No. 1)
36 N.E.3d 575
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Early morning entry into homeowner’s Cambridge house; homeowner awakened and reported an uninvited man inside. Defendant was observed at front door with homeowner’s items on the porch, then ran and was seen exiting a back window into snow. Police recovered an eyeglass screwdriver under the defendant consistent with marks on the window.
- Foreign currency was missing from the foyer. At the police station the defendant’s wallet contained foreign currency from five countries; he later retrieved that money and hid it in the cell ceiling.
- Defendant proceeded pro se at trial and was convicted of: unarmed nighttime burglary (count I), two counts of larceny over $250 (counts II and III), and attempted larceny (count IV); habitual-offender enhancement was sought.
- On appeal defendant argued the two larceny convictions were duplicative and that attempted larceny was duplicative of one larceny conviction.
- The court found two separate takings (home foyer and police booking area) supporting two larceny convictions, but held attempted larceny is a lesser included offense of larceny and therefore vacated the attempted larceny conviction as duplicative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two convictions for larceny of foreign currency are duplicative | Commonwealth: two convictions valid if based on separate takings | Aldrich: the larcenies are duplicative because part of single scheme | Not duplicative — facts support two separate takings at different times/places |
| Whether attempted larceny is duplicative of larceny | Commonwealth: attempt is distinct unless Legislature intended otherwise | Aldrich: attempted larceny duplicates completed larceny from the home | Attempted larceny is a lesser included offense of larceny; conviction vacated as duplicative |
| Standard for judging lesser‑included vs distinct offenses | Commonwealth: use elements test per Vick | Aldrich: conduct-based view urged | Court applies elements-based Vick framework but treats completion vs noncompletion as same element for double jeopardy purposes |
| Remedy for duplicative conviction | Commonwealth sought affirmance | Aldrich sought vacatur of duplicative counts | Vacated the attempted larceny conviction and dismissal of that indictment; affirmed remaining judgments and denial of new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Vick, 454 Mass. 418 (elements-based double jeopardy test governs whether offenses are duplicative)
- Commonwealth v. LeBeau, 451 Mass. 244 (single-incident larceny principles; guidance on when multiple takings constitute one offense)
- Commonwealth v. Porro, 458 Mass. 526 (attempt is a lesser included offense where completion/noncompletion are two sides of same element)
- Commonwealth v. Gosselin, 365 Mass. 116 (historical authority treating attempt as lesser included offense)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 401 Mass. 771 (successive takings may be charged separately unless part of single continuing impulse)
- Commonwealth v. Bell, 455 Mass. 408 (articulates attempt elements including nonachievement)