21-P-0714
Mass. App. Ct.Apr 25, 2023Background:
- Defendant convicted after a jury-waived trial of threatening to commit a crime (G. L. c. 275, § 2); related assault charge dismissed.
- Police were dispatched to a fourth-floor apartment after reports of loud male and female yelling inside.
- Officers heard a male voice say, "I'll fucking kill you," followed by a female response; officers knocked and announced themselves.
- Approximately 30–45 seconds later the defendant, the only man in the apartment, opened the door; officers cleared the apartment and found only the woman present.
- Defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty arguing insufficiency of evidence as to identity, intent, and reasonable apprehension; motion denied and conviction affirmed on appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Cummings' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity of speaker | Circumstantial evidence supports inference defendant was the male who made the threat (only man to emerge seconds after threat). | No voice identification; woman could have had a male-sounding voice. | Sufficient circumstantial evidence to identify defendant as speaker; no formal voice ID required. |
| Whether statement expressed intent to commit a crime | The explicit threat "I'll fucking kill you" in context of loud argument shows intent directed at the woman. | Could have been frustration directed at an object (e.g., a TV), not a threat to a person. | Context (yelling, insult "you cunt") supports inference the threat was directed at the woman and expressed intent. |
| Reasonable apprehension by target | The content and circumstances (yelling, one man and one woman together) would objectively cause fear that the threatened harm might be inflicted. | Commonwealth did not prove the woman was reasonably placed in fear. | Objective standard met; facts permitted finding of reasonable apprehension. |
| Sufficiency review standard / motion for required finding | Evidence reviewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth under Jackson/Latimore standard; all reasonable inferences drawn for prosecution. | Evidence insufficient at close of Commonwealth's case. | Motion properly denied; evidence sufficient under Jackson/Latimore. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; draw inferences for prosecution)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (constitutional standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Haverhill, 459 Mass. 422 (2011) (elements of threatening under G. L. c. 275, § 2: intent and ability causing apprehension)
- Commonwealth v. Sholley, 432 Mass. 721 (2000) (threat must be such as would justify recipient's apprehension; consider context and tone)
- Davis v. Commonwealth, 491 Mass. 1011 (2023) (identity may be established by circumstantial evidence; inferences drawn for Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Lao, 443 Mass. 770 (2005) (factfinder may draw reasonable, non-inescapable inferences)
- Commonwealth v. Maiden, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 433 (2004) (objective standard for reasonable apprehension of fear)
- Commonwealth v. Kerns, 449 Mass. 641 (2007) (clarifies objective standard and consideration of context)
- Commonwealth v. Bacigalupo, 455 Mass. 485 (2009) (evaluating evidence where defense theory developed after Commonwealth rested)