73 N.E.3d 823
Mass. App. Ct.2017Background
- After William Lantigua was elected mayor of Lawrence in 2009, Leonard Degnan served as his chief of staff and oversaw city contracts and vendor relations.
- Allied Waste held a new, costly municipal trash contract with Lawrence that included a convenience clause allowing termination at will.
- In December 2009 Degnan met with Allied manager Stanley Walczak (with DPW head Frank McCann present) and, after threatening the contract, asked Allied to donate a trash truck to Lantigua’s Dominican sister city, Tenares.
- Feeling pressured and fearing loss of the contract, Allied approved and prepared an aging truck for donation; the truck was shipped and received in Tenares; the city did not terminate or modify the Allied contract thereafter.
- A grand jury indicted Degnan on bribery, gratuity, conspiracy, unlawful use of office, and related charges; a 2014 jury convicted him of soliciting a bribe (G. L. c. 268A, §2(b)), soliciting a gratuity (G. L. c. 268A, §3(b)), conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and unlawful use of an official position; one extortion count was acquittal.
- On appeal, the court affirmed all convictions except it vacated the §3(b) gratuity conviction as duplicative of the §2(b) bribery conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for bribery (G. L. c. 268A §2(b)) | Commonwealth: Degnan solicited a thing of value (truck) corruptly in exchange for influencing official action (keeping/voiding the Allied contract); his threats show quid pro quo intent. | Degnan: Insufficient proof of corrupt intent and lack of proof the contract could be terminated or was within his official authority. | Affirmed: Evidence supported corrupt quid pro quo intent and showed the contract was within his official responsibility; convenience clause permitted termination. |
| Duplicative convictions (bribery v. gratuity) | Commonwealth: Both convictions supported by evidence. | Degnan: §3(b) gratuity is lesser-included and duplicative of §2(b) bribery; cannot sustain both. | Vacated conviction under §3(b) as duplicative of §2(b). |
| Sufficiency for conspiracy to solicit a bribe | Commonwealth: Circumstantial evidence (vacation, meetings, conduct) established agreement between Degnan and mayor to solicit bribe. | Degnan: No agreement proven. | Affirmed: Sufficient circumstantial evidence of conspiracy. |
| Prosecutor's closing argument | Commonwealth: Remarks summarized evidence and reasonable inferences; fair response to defense themes. | Degnan: Several unobjected-to remarks were improper and risked miscarriage of justice. | Affirmed: Remarks were within evidence and did not create substantial risk of miscarriage of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (identifying standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Scaccia v. State Ethics Comm’n, 431 Mass. 351 (describing bribery under G. L. c. 268A §2 as quid pro quo and gratuity as lesser/in one-way nexus)
- Dutney v. Commonwealth, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 363 (discussing §2 and §3 relationship)
- McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (permitting broad evidentiary inquiry into nature of transaction for quid pro quo intent)
- Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal. v. United States, 526 U.S. 398 (discussing quid pro quo concept in federal bribery law)
- Alfisi v. United States, 308 F.3d 144 (corrupt intent as quid pro quo requirement)
- United States v. Valle, 538 F.3d 341 (statute violated when official takes bribe knowing purpose is to induce violation of duty)
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (no requirement that quid pro quo be fulfilled)
- Commonwealth v. Porro, 458 Mass. 526 (definition and treatment of lesser included offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Vick, 454 Mass. 418 (duplicative conviction doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Guaman, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 36 (duplicative convictions and dismissal principles)
- Commonwealth v. Cerveny, 387 Mass. 280 (principles for proving conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Lonardo, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 566 (conspiracy proof by circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 460 Mass. 385 (standard for unobjected-to prosecutorial comments)
- Commonwealth v. Kater, 432 Mass. 404 (prosecutor may argue reasonable inferences from evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 461 Mass. 44 (concurrent sentencing and remand considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Vazquez, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 622 (distinguishing §3 gratuity elements as subset of §2 bribery)