975 N.E.2d 870
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Feb. 14, 2008, Wong was robbed by two men; wallet taken from victim; getaway car was a black two-door Honda Civic.
- Police stopped a matching car with defendant driving and Barros, Teixeira, and Fernandes as occupants.
- Wong identified Fernandes and Teixeira; victim’s wallet and IDs found in the car; $420 recovered in possession of Fernandes.
- A silver BB gun was recovered behind the front passenger seat; 50 dollars on defendant; money in wallet not found on him.
- Defendant did not testify; defense argued insufficient evidence of presence at the scene or participation.
- Barros made an inculpatory statement to a probation officer; court admitted limited- use testimony and jury instruction limited Bruton concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance due to co-defendant’s out-of-court statement | Commonwealth argues Bruton not violated; limiting instruction suffices | Barros’s statement implicates Dosouto; prejudicial, requires severance | No reversible Bruton error; limiting instruction adequate |
| Admissibility of prior bad acts/other robberies | Evidence admissible for context; separately not prejudicial | Hearsay and confrontation rights violation | Harmless beyond reasonable doubt; overwhelming evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for knowledge of weapon | Latimore inference supports defendant knew weapon used | No direct proof defendant knew weapon present | Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports conviction |
| Jury instruction on specific intent and knowledge of weapon | Instructions emphasized knowing participation and intent | Omissions create substantial risk of miscarriage | No substantial risk; instructions, viewed as whole, adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (introduction of non-testifying co-defendant’s statement requires caution)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (redacted statements may still violate confrontation clause)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1998) (references to codefendant must not be direct or obvious to jury)
- Vasquez, 462 Mass. 827 (Mass. 2012) (limitations on Bruton; statements must not directly refer to defendant)
- Keevan, 400 Mass. 557 (Mass. 1987) (limiting instruction can cure Bruton concerns)