Commonwealth v. Arias
78 Mass. App. Ct. 429
Mass. App. Ct.2010Background
- Defendant Jorge Arias was convicted after a jury trial of larceny over $250, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to stop for a police officer.
- Officer Leonard observed Arias throw boxes over a fence at Home Depot, then confront Arias as Arias tried to drive away in a truck.
- Leonard drew his weapon; Arias accelerated toward Leonard, causing a 15-second face-to-face encounter and later a high-speed chase.
- Leonard positively identified Arias at the scene; another officer identified the truck involved in the pursuit; defense claimed ownership and alibi.
- Value of the stolen merchandise in the boxes was $816; defense argued limited speed capability and alternate timing for the events.
- The trial court verdict addressed theories of assault, sufficiency of evidence for assault by a dangerous weapon, and identification procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of a special verdict slip risked miscarriage. | Arias claims two assault theories require a slip. | Argues the slip should have been given to ensure unanimity. | No substantial risk; not required. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for assault by means of a dangerous weapon. | Evidence supports both attempted battery and threatened battery. | Evidence insufficient to prove intent or each theory. | Evidence sufficient under Latimore framework. |
| Whether denial of nonsuggestive in-court identification was error. | Discretionary determination; shows no abuse. | Should have granted a nonsuggestive in-court procedure. | No abuse of discretion; identification proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gorassi, 432 Mass. 244 (2000) (defines assault as attempted battery or threatened battery)
- Commonwealth v. Melton, 436 Mass. 291 (2002) (distinguishes attempted and threatened battery elements)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (Jackson v. Virginia standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Santos, 440 Mass. 281 (2003) (requires unanimity when alternate theories exist; limitsBerry/Accetta applicability)
- Commonwealth v. Berry, 420 Mass. 95 (1995) (unanimity with alternate theories; special verdicts not always required)
- Commonwealth v. Lednum, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 722 (2009) (same conduct can prove multiple assault forms)
- Commonwealth v. Pearsall, 370 Mass. 413 (1976) (in-court identification procedures reviewed for fairness)
- Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472 (1980) (prompt showups permissible to confirm identity)