Commonwealth v. Cruz
90 Mass. App. Ct. 60
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Miguel Cruz was convicted after four undercover sales of cocaine in late 2007 (three sales ~259 feet from the East Boston YMCA child care facility; one sale in a car ~173 feet from the facility).
- The East Boston YMCA operates a licensed, accredited child care center enrolling 93 children aged ~15 months to 5 years; center is accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children.
- Cruz appealed convictions for distributing drugs in a school zone under G. L. c. 94C, § 32J (then a 1,000-foot radius), arguing the YMCA center was not a statutory "preschool."
- Cruz also moved for a new trial asserting courtroom closure to family during jury empanelment (public-trial claim) and ineffective assistance (failure to convey a plea offer); the motion judge held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion.
- The Appeals Court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence under Latimore standards and deferred to the motion judge on credibility findings from the evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether YMCA child care center qualifies as a "preschool" under § 32J | Commonwealth: center is an accredited facility serving pre‑elementary children and thus falls within the statutory preschool category | Cruz: the facility is a daycare, not a preschool, so § 32J does not apply | Court: The center reasonably qualifies as a preschool (children < elementary age, accredited, staffed by teachers); convictions stand |
| Sufficiency of evidence for school‑zone convictions | Commonwealth: proved proximity and that facility was an accredited preschool | Cruz: statutory term "preschool" should be strictly construed to exclude daycare | Court: Under Latimore, evidence admitted was sufficient for a jury to find the center is a preschool; strict construction guide for ambiguity only |
| Closure of courtroom during jury empanelment (public‑trial right) | Commonwealth: trialcourt witnesses testified no members of public were prevented from entering | Cruz: family members were barred from entering courtroom during empanelment | Court: Motion judge credited Commonwealth witnesses; no courtroom closure shown and no abuse of discretion in denying new trial |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to convey plea offer | Commonwealth: trial counsel and prosecutor testified any pretrial offers were proposed by defense counsel and rejected | Cruz: counsel failed to inform him of a five‑year offer, causing a worse outcome | Court: Claim was withdrawn at hearing; motion judge found no evidence supporting ineffective assistance; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gonzales, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 728 (1992) (Commonwealth must prove the school type enumerated in § 32J)
- Commonwealth v. Gopaul, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 685 (2014) (statutory words given their usual and accepted meanings)
- Commonwealth v. Zone Book, Inc., 372 Mass. 366 (1977) (deriving statutory word meaning from legal and dictionary contexts)
- Commonwealth v. Casale, 381 Mass. 167 (1980) (Latimore sufficiency standard: jury inferences need only be reasonable)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Roucoulet, 413 Mass. 647 (1992) (statute's broad remedial purpose to protect schools from drug trafficking)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (1974) (standard for ineffective assistance claims)