Commonwealth v. Green
AC 16-P-396
| Mass. App. Ct. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- On June 11–12, 2013, neighbors Crystal Perry and Kristofer Williams were murdered in their Falmouth home; the house was forced open and ransacked, but jewelry and a wallet remained.
- Darryl S. Green, a neighbor with a heroin addiction, admitted to police that he entered the house looking for drugs, found $100 near the entrance and $140 in a bedroom, took the money, and spent it on heroin; he denied taking jewelry.
- Evidence showed Green had cash the morning after the murders (unusual given his prior pattern), purchased $200–$300 of heroin that morning, and wore different rubber boots that day.
- Police observed the ransacked condition described by Green; some money was later found on the victims or in their pockets by police.
- Green was tried without a jury, convicted of stealing in a building (G. L. c. 266, § 20), and sentenced to state prison; he appealed challenging corroboration of his confession, the sufficiency for stealing in a building, and victim impact statements at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Green's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction rested on an uncorroborated confession | Confession was corroborated by the ransacked house, matching details (wallet, jewelry), possession of cash matching amount confessed, purchase of heroin, and changed boots | Confession was the only evidence that anything was taken from the home; thus conviction impermissibly based on uncorroborated confession | Corroboration was sufficient: physical scene, matching details, possession/use of proceeds, and circumstantial evidence met the minimal corroboration requirement (affirmed) |
| Whether the taking constituted "stealing in a building" under G. L. c. 266, § 20 | Money found in house and bedroom, not under personal protection of anyone, fits longstanding definition of property "under the protection of the building" | Argues the theft might be characterized as stealing from the person or otherwise insufficient to qualify as stealing in a building | Evidence supported that money was not under personal protection and was within the building; conviction for stealing in a building was proper |
| Whether victim impact statements at sentencing required resentencing | Impact statements were permissible; judge may consider them and can disregard improper content | Statements were prejudicial and warrant resentencing | No error; no indication judge relied on improper factors and claim was waived for lack of contemporaneous objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Forde, 392 Mass. 453 (1984) (an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession is insufficient to prove guilt)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 428 Mass. 455 (1998) (confession corroborated by defendant appearing with robbery proceeds and other tangible evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Landenburg, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 23 (1996) (presence of items in an associate's apartment did not sufficiently corroborate defendant's confession)
- Commonwealth v. Villalta-Duarte, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 821 (2002) (corroboration requirement is minimal; some evidence beyond confession that the crime was real is required)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Willard, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 650 (2002) (property must be under protection of building rather than personal protection to support stealing in a building)