Commonwealth v. Mattier
474 Mass. 261
Mass.2016Background
- After the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, One Fund Boston solicited claims; payments depended on injury severity and required hospital documentation.
- Branden E. Mattier submitted a claim on behalf of a deceased aunt, attaching a forged letter purporting to be from Dr. Peter Burke asserting double amputation; he requested the check be made payable to him.
- One Fund suspected fraud, rejected the claim, and alerted the Attorney General; police conducted a sting (controlled delivery of a fake approval letter and check).
- Police observed Mattier accept delivery, asked for ID, then arrested him; his cellphone was inventoried at booking and later searched pursuant to a warrant, producing texts between Mattier and his half-brother Domunique Grice discussing the scheme.
- A jury convicted both defendants of conspiracy to commit larceny and attempted larceny; Mattier was also convicted of identity fraud. Both appealed; the SJC granted direct review.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mattier "posed as another person" under the identity fraud statute (G. L. c. 266, § 37E) | The forged doctor’s letter amounted to posing as Dr. Burke; statute allows indirect posing and need not be simultaneous with the attempted obtaining of money | Mattier did not represent himself to One Fund as Dr. Burke; the forgery challenged only the authenticity of a document, not an assertion of identity to a third party | Conviction for identity fraud vacated: statute requires a false representation of identity to a third party; submitting a forged document without representing oneself as that person is insufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted larceny and conspiracy | Texts, forged letter, claim form, and communications showed intent and participation to obtain One Fund monies | Grice argued evidence did not prove intent to complete the crime or that inferences were exclusive | Convictions for attempted larceny and conspiracy affirmed as sufficient evidence supported reasonable inferences of intent and joint participation |
| Validity of arrest and admissibility of cellphone evidence (motion to suppress) | Warrantless arrest was proper because probable cause existed for identity fraud and attempted larceny; in any event, the search warrant authorized seizure and the phone’s discovery was inevitable | Arrest unlawful (identity fraud element lacking; misdemeanor arrest for attempted larceny unsupported), so cellphone evidence should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful arrest | Evidence admissible: police were authorized to detain occupants during execution of a valid apartment search warrant; phone inevitably would have been discovered and search warrant later authorized search of phone |
| Juror bias from donations to One Fund (for-cause strikes) | Donations did not create disqualifying bias; jurors who credibly said they could be impartial could serve | Defendants argued implied bias because jurors were donors to the fund targeted by the alleged scheme, requiring disqualification | No abuse of discretion: donations to a charity did not create financial interest or presumptive bias; only extreme circumstances would show implied bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Giavazzi, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 374 (interpretation of identity-fraud elements)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- International Fid. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 387 Mass. 841 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Commonwealth v. Constantino, 443 Mass. 521 (rule of lenity applies where statute ambiguous)
- Commonwealth v. Hinds, 437 Mass. 54 (interpretation of undefined statutory language by ordinary usage)
- Commonwealth v. McCauliff, 461 Mass. 635 (false-representation analysis requires a recipient of the representation)
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (authority to detain occupants during execution of a search warrant)