Commonwealth v. Jansen
459 Mass. 21
| Mass. | 2011Background
- A Berkshire County grand jury indicted Jansen for aggravated rape under G. L. c. 265, § 22 (a) based on a joint enterprise with Kincaid and Lampron.
- Three indictments charged aggravated rape for (i) Jansen's own act, (ii) Kincaid's act videotaped in which Lampron helped, and (iii) Lampron's act videotaped by a camera in which a hair tie was inserted.
- A mistrial occurred after a nonunanimous jury; the judge dismissed second and third indictments and parts of the first for insufficiency.
- Commonwealth appealed; a single justice consolidated with the appeal; appellate court held there was sufficient evidence for retrial contrary to the judge, which this court granted for review.
- DNA testing linked the hair tie to Kincaid as a donor; there was evidence of videotape footage depicting acts, but the defendant was not shown on the tape.
- This court held there was insufficient evidence of a joint enterprise for the second and third indictments, but sufficient evidence of Gail’s incapacity to consent for the rape portion of the first indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports joint enterprise for aggravated rape on first indictment | Jansen asserts insufficient joint enterprise evidence for aggravated rape. | Commonwealth contends joint enterprise by multiple actors proven. | Insufficient evidence of joint enterprise; first indictment aggravated rape dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether evidence supports joint enterprise for second and third indictments | Commonwealth argues camera operation by defendants implied joint participation. | Jansen challenges that no one proved defendant operated or knew of the camera. | Insufficient evidence of participation; second and third indictments dismissed. |
| Whether the first indictment sufficiently proves rape as a lesser included offense | Commonwealth contends the hair tie evidence and DNA support lack of consent and penetration. | Jansen argues insufficient proof of penetration and lack of consent. | Sufficient evidence shows rape as lesser included offense; conviction on rape portion affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Medeiros, 456 Mass. 52 (Mass. 2010) (joint enterprise as required for aggravated rape)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (standard for circumstantial evidence sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Slate, 11 Gray 60 (Mass. 1858) (united act requirement for aggravated rape by joint enterprise)
- Commonwealth v. Blache, 450 Mass. 583 (Mass. 2008) (incapacity to consent; force required to penetrate)
- Commonwealth v. Burke, 105 Mass. 376 (Mass. 1870) (consent and force elements in rape)
- Commonwealth v. McCourt, 438 Mass. 486 (Mass. 2003) (essence of rape and defining aggravating factors)
- Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (Mass. 2009) (standard for sufficiency after Zanetti; evaluate knowingly participated)
- Commonwealth v. Miranda, 458 Mass. 100 (Mass. 2010) (application of Zanetti to sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Beneche, 458 Mass. 61 (Mass. 2010) (sufficiency of evidence under joint venture analysis)