Commonwealth v. Benitez
464 Mass. 686
Mass.2013Background
- Botsford and Santos were tried in 2008 for first-degree felony-murder and armed robbery; both were convicted on both charges.
- The victim was shot outside the Red Cross building in Lowell; defendant had previously arranged heroin purchase for Santos and supplied a gun.
- Marquez testified as the principal prosecution witness; the Commonwealth alleged a joint venture to rob the victim with Santos.
- Defendant proposed the robbery plan, handed Santos a pistol, and acted as a lookout; Santos shot the victim during the robbery.
- Evidence included pre-incident planning, travel to Hiraldo’s residence, and subsequent flight from the scene; Santos’s prior punch of Hiraldo was admitted.
- Santos later obtained a new trial on other grounds; the court affirmed the defendant’s felony-murder conviction and vacated the armed robbery conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of joint-venture evidence | Commonwealth: defendant knowingly joined with Santos and shared the robbery intent. | Defendant: no sufficient evidence of joint venture or shared intent to rob. | Evidence supported joint venture and intent; conviction upheld. |
| Admission of Santos' prior bad act | Commonwealth: punching Hiraldo related to joint venture planning; probative. | Defendant: evidence prejudice and lacks relevance to joint venture. | Error admitted but not reversible; limited prejudice did not miscarriage justice. |
| Instruction on felony-murder in the second degree | Commonwealth: possible alternative theory based on armed assault with intent to rob. | Defendant: instruction should have been given given evidence. | No instruction required; evidence favored armed robbery, not armed assault with intent to rob. |
| Merger of armed robbery as predicate | Commonwealth: merger concerns should not affect felony-murder conviction. | Defendant: armed robbery predicates merge with felony-murder. | Concurrence: conviction vacated for merger; armed robbery verdict set aside. |
| Review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E | Commonwealth: Santos’ reversal does not mandate defendant’s reversal; no prejudice from Bruton issues. | Defendant: reversal of Santos could affect the defendant’s conviction; potential prejudice. | No basis to reverse defendant’s conviction; 33E review upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (2009) (joint-venture participation requires knowledge and shared intent)
- Commonwealth v. Rogers, 459 Mass. 249 (2011) (armed robbery elements and intent clarified)
- Commonwealth v. Glowacki, 398 Mass. 507 (1986) (limits on instructing felony-murder secondary to underlying felonies)
- Commonwealth v. Stokes, 460 Mass. 311 (2011) (no error for unrequested felony instruction where not supported)
- Commonwealth v. Santos, 463 Mass. 273 (2012) (reversal on separate grounds; Bruton issues discussed)
- Commonwealth v. Reveron, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 354 (2009) (nonpresence joint venture drug-case distinctions)