Commonwealth v. Faust
964 N.E.2d 987
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- On Feb. 26, 2010, Faust was stopped driving a stolen car and taken into custody by Boston police.
- An inventory search revealed two flashlights, three screwdrivers, a folding knife, a laptop, and Westlaw printouts; a backpack contained the laptop and stolen property; a duffel bag held welding equipment; an orange/black backpack contained four GPS units with car chargers (two with car mounts).
- At the station, Faust provided several spellings of a false name and claimed ownership of a laptop; police noted he used an iPod Touch and claimed the iPod was his girlfriend’s iPhone, which he used for music.
- Three property owners identified items among the seized goods; Emond and Lewis testified their property was found in Faust’s car, Amacon did not testify.
- Faust was charged with three counts of receiving stolen property over $250, four counts under $250, one count of possessing burglarious instruments, and one count of furnishing a false name; he challenged sufficiency of the burglary instruments evidence, the closing argument, duplicative or insufficient receipt convictions, and certain evidentiary rulings, but the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of burglary instruments mens rea | Faust intended to use tools to commit burglary. | No evidence of intent to break into a specific place. | Sufficient intent shown; tools used for burglary purpose inferred. |
| Convictions for receiving stolen property vs. duplicitous counts | Multiple items (GPS units) were stolen at separate times/places; each counts separately. | Donovan-type rule requires consolidating into a single taking. | Evidence supports separate counts; convictions not duplicative. |
| Prosecutor's closing argument | Characterizations as thief/liar are permissible given evidence of false statements. | Repeated labeling risks prejudice. | Closing argument did not create substantial miscarriage of justice. |
| Admission of evidence and related evidentiary rulings | Various items and testimony properly admitted as probative. | Some evidence (police journal) violated confrontation rights and other limits. | Errors were not reversible; cumulative and non-prejudicial in context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tivnon, 8 Gray 375 (Mass. 1857) (burglary instrument intent need not be tied to a specific place)
- Commonwealth v. Corcoran, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 123 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007) (receiving stolen property doesn't require proving thief status)
- Commonwealth v. Aleo, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 916 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984) (no need to identify a specific depository for burglary tools)
- Commonwealth v. McNulty, 458 Mass. 305 (Mass. 2010) (admissibility of a defendant's denials and responses)
- Commonwealth v. Coren, 437 Mass. 723 (Mass. 2002) (closing arguments and labeling in context of evidence lawful)
- Commonwealth v. Rosario, 430 Mass. 505 (Mass. 1999) (background testimony proper to establish state of knowledge)
- Commonwealth v. Cromwell, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 662 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (confrontation and cumulative evidence considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 455 Mass. 372 (Mass. 2009) (fairness of closing arguments in context of the record)