Commonwealth v. Hanright
466 Mass. 303
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Defendant Scott Hanright was indicted as a joint venturer/coconspirator for an armed robbery committed by Domenic Cinelli at a Woburn department store and for crimes Cinelli committed while fleeing, including the killing of Officer John Maguire.
- Evidence to the grand jury: Hanright knew of Cinelli’s prior jewelry‑store convictions, rode with him to scope escape routes, was given a mask and told to return to the car after the robbery, knew Cinelli had a gun, and stood outside the store while Cinelli went inside.
- After the robbery Cinelli engaged police, shot and killed Officer Maguire, and committed other assault/firearm offenses; Hanright discarded his mask, walked away, used a phone, and was arrested.
- The motion judge dismissed indictments charging Hanright with the non‑fatal escape‑related offenses and precluded theories of murder other than felony‑murder, finding insufficient evidence of Hanright’s participation or intent for post‑store crimes.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed grand jury evidence for probable cause and considered the distinction between joint venture felony‑murder and joint venture liability for other unintended crimes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hanright can be held liable as a joint venturer for Cinelli’s escape‑related nonfatal crimes | Commonwealth: probable cause supports indictments; jury can find Hanright participated and intended those crimes | Hanright: no evidence he participated in or intended crimes after Cinelli left the store; dismiss those counts | Reversed dismissal — indictments survive; Commonwealth must prove at trial Hanright participated in and intended each escape‑related crime |
| Whether felony‑murder liability extends to Hanright for Maguire’s death | Commonwealth: felony‑murder applies because death occurred in course of armed robbery/escape | Hanright: challenges broader liability theories (constitutional claim not pressed on appeal) | Felony‑murder theory stands; joint venturer’s intent to commit the robbery suffices for felony‑murder |
| Whether murder theories based on deliberate premeditation or extreme atrocity/ cruelty may proceed | Commonwealth: presented sufficient grand jury evidence of Hanright’s conditional/contingent intent to kill or cause grievous harm | Hanright: lacked intent for deliberate premeditation/atrocity; should be dismissed | Reversed dismissal — grand jury had probable cause to charge these theories; jury must decide intent beyond reasonable doubt |
| Proper jury instructions if case proceeds on escape crimes and non‑felony murder theories | Commonwealth: may proceed; jury should receive instructions covering aiding/abetting and intent | Hanright: (implicit) instruct that mere participation in robbery is insufficient for nonfelony escape crimes | Court: instruct separately on each offense and on aiding/abetting; may explain contingent/conditional intent and that mere intent to commit robbery is insufficient (give felony‑murder instruction separately) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Matchett, 386 Mass. 492 (Mass. 1982) (describing felony‑murder substitution of intent for malice)
- Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835 (Mass. 1976) (joint enterprise and felony‑murder principles)
- Commonwealth v. Richards, 363 Mass. 299 (Mass. 1973) (rejecting broad natural‑and‑probable‑consequences accomplice liability outside felony‑murder)
- Commonwealth v. Hogan, 379 Mass. 190 (Mass. 1979) (limiting joint venture liability for unintended crimes)
- Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (Mass. 2009) (requiring evidence of participation and requisite mental state for accomplice liability)
- Commonwealth v. Housen, 458 Mass. 702 (Mass. 2011) (felony‑murder doctrine discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Earle, 458 Mass. 341 (Mass. 2010) (elements for murder theories other than felony‑murder)
- Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160 (Mass. 1982) (standard for motion to dismiss indictments; grand jury probable cause review)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (definition of probable cause)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1964) (probable cause standard for arrests)