Commonwealth v. Dancy
90 Mass. App. Ct. 703
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On August 25, 2012, at a Dorchester festival police were alerted by a passerby that "a man had a gun" and began to follow a small group that included Damonte Dancy.
- An officer observed Dancy slow near a parked vehicle and heard a noise consistent with a gun striking the pavement; two other males were 10–15 feet away.
- Police canvassed the area, recovered a loaded firearm from beneath the parked vehicle, and arrested Dancy.
- Dancy was charged with G. L. c. 269, § 10(a) (possession of a firearm without a license), § 10(h)(1) (possession of ammunition without an FID card), and § 10(n) (enhanced punishment for violating § 10(a) or § 10(c) by means of a loaded firearm).
- The jury acquitted Dancy of § 10(a) and § 10(h)(1) but convicted him under § 10(n).
- The Appeals Court reversed the § 10(n) conviction, holding that § 10(n) requires a predicate conviction under § 10(a) or § 10(c), which was lacking here due to the acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction under G. L. c. 269, § 10(n) may stand absent a conviction of the predicate offense (§ 10(a) or § 10(c)) | Commonwealth: Loadholt requires only that the defendant be charged with a predicate offense; actual conviction of the predicate is not necessary | Dancy: § 10(n) is an enhancement that requires an underlying conviction of § 10(a) or § 10(c); acquittal of § 10(a) precludes § 10(n) conviction | Held: § 10(n) requires a finding/conviction of § 10(a) or § 10(c); conviction under § 10(n) reversed because defendant was acquitted of the predicate offense |
| Whether inconsistent verdict doctrine mandates affirmance of the § 10(n) conviction despite acquittal on predicate | Commonwealth: inconsistent verdicts do not automatically invalidate a guilty verdict | Dancy: this is not mere inconsistency but absence of the required predicate conviction | Held: Inconsistency doctrine inapplicable—here the acquittal eliminated the predicate required for § 10(n) punishment |
| Other trial errors (sufficiency, suppression, evidentiary rulings) | Commonwealth: conviction valid; other rulings harmless or correct | Dancy: raised multiple errors on appeal | Held: Court did not reach these claims because § 10(n) conviction was unlawful and reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Loadholt, 456 Mass. 411 (2010) (interpreting requirement that § 10(n) be tied to § 10(a) or § 10(c))
- Commonwealth v. Loadholt, 460 Mass. 723 (2011) (SJC action addressing related procedural posture)
- Commonwealth v. Williamson, 462 Mass. 676 (2012) (statutory construction principles; give words ordinary meaning)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 453 Mass. 707 (2009) (statutory interpretation authority cited)
- Bronstein v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 390 Mass. 701 (1984) (plain-language statutory interpretation rule)
- Commonwealth v. Charles, 463 Mass. 1008 (2012) (inconsistent verdicts doctrine discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 452 Mass. 142 (2008) (inconsistent verdicts precedent)