Commonwealth v. Beal
474 Mass. 341
Mass.2016Background
- In 2008 the defendant was tried for shooting at a Dorchester cookout; victim Joao Pereira was shot in the lower back and later required hospitalization, rehabilitation, wheelchair/crutches/leg braces. The defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, carrying a loaded firearm, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury (against Joao), and two counts of assault by means of a dangerous weapon (against Joao and Ovidio).
- DNA and physical evidence tied the firearm found in the family Toyota to the defendant; the defendant testified he was in the car but denied firing the shots.
- After the jury verdicts, a subsequent-offender hearing used certified convictions (assault and battery; assault and battery on a public employee) to allege predicate "violent crimes" under Massachusetts' armed career criminal act (ACCA), G. L. c. 269, § 10G.
- Defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for the serious‑bodily‑injury assault conviction, (2) duplicative convictions (lesser included and ammunition possession), and (3) sufficiency of proof that his prior convictions were "violent crimes" under the ACCA; the Commonwealth relied on certified conviction records alone at the ACCA hearing.
- The trial judge denied motions for required findings; the jury convicted on all counts (acquitting only on attempted-murder charge). On appeal the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed most convictions but reversed as to a duplicative assault count and the ACCA enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Beal's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that shooting caused "serious bodily injury" under G. L. c. 265, § 15A | Evidence of hospitalization, long rehab, wheelchair/crutches/leg braces sufficed | Absent medical records or victim testimony, evidence was insufficient | Affirmed: jurors reasonably inferred gunshot caused limb impairment meeting statutory "serious bodily injury" |
| Duplicative convictions: assault and battery causing serious bodily injury (greater) and assault by means of a dangerous weapon (lesser) for Joao | Separate shooting episodes supported both convictions | Convictions are duplicative if based on same act and jury not instructed they must be separate | Vacated the lesser included assault conviction as judge failed to require jury to base convictions on separate acts; conviction against Ovidio upheld because separate victim |
| Possession of ammunition ( § 10(h)) vs. possession of loaded firearm ( § 10(n)) | Both convictions permissible | Ammunition charge is lesser included if all ammunition was in the firearm | Commonwealth concedes and court vacated the ammunition conviction as duplicative |
| ACCA enhancement: whether defendant's prior convictions qualify as "violent crimes" and validity of ACCA residual clause | Certified convictions suffice to show predicates; residual clause valid | Certified records insufficient because assault statutes encompass nonviolent variants; residual clause unconstitutional (per Johnson) | Reversed ACCA conviction: residual clause of Massachusetts ACCA held unconstitutionally vague; certified conviction records alone insufficient to prove prior offenses were "violent crimes" under the force clause; no remand for retrial due to double jeopardy/insufficiency concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (applies Jackson standard in Massachusetts)
- Commonwealth v. Eberhart, 461 Mass. 809 (explains modified categorical approach and burden at ACCA jury trial)
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 464 Mass. 355 (discusses proof required for "impairment" and serious bodily injury)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (invalidated the Federal ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 470 Mass. 682 (addresses jury instructions and risk of miscarriage of justice from failing to require separate-act findings)
- Commonwealth v. Traylor, 472 Mass. 260 (multiple victims permit separate convictions for same transaction)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (describes categorical and modified categorical approaches)