Commonwealth v. Mendez
476 Mass. 512
| Mass. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 18, 2010, Mendez and Massie allegedly staged two marijuana-buy pretexts: they robbed Ryan Moitoso earlier that evening, then arranged to meet Edward Platts and, at that meeting, Platts was shot and later died.
- Witness at the scene of the shooting called 911; a state trooper in an unmarked cruiser responded within ten minutes, observed Mendez hurriedly enter a white Civic that then drove off quickly, and followed it for ~8.5 minutes (~4 miles).
- While following, the trooper learned the vehicle was registered to a person with a violent criminal record and that police had confirmed a fatal shooting; the vehicle later stopped, the trooper identified himself, the two men exited and fled in different directions, and both were seized. Handguns were recovered; Massie had over $4,000 in cash; Mendez had the victim’s blood on his clothes and the victim’s puppy was in the car.
- Both defendants were tried jointly on indictments charging first‑degree murder (felony‑murder theory), armed robbery, firearms offenses, and related counts; motions to suppress the post‑arrest evidence and to sever the offenses were denied; both were convicted and appealed.
- On appeal they challenged (inter alia) the denial of the suppression motion (reasonable‑suspicion stop), joinder of related offenses, portions of the prosecutor’s closing argument, and sufficiency of evidence as to Massie.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless stop / reasonable suspicion | Trooper had reasonable suspicion based on (1) 911 report of fatal shooting nearby, (2) Mendez s hurried entry into a vehicle that left quickly, (3) erratic route, and (4) vehicle registered to person with violent record | Stop was based on a hunch; following and stop were unwarranted because observed conduct was consistent with innocent driving and descriptions conflicted | Stop was reasonable under totality of circumstances; surveillance + corroborating information gave articulable suspicion to seize defendants |
| Joinder of two robbery/shooting incidents | Offenses were related (same modus operandi, close in time and place); evidence of each would be admissible in separate trials for common scheme/pattern | Joinder unfairly prejudiced defendants by admitting propensity evidence | Joinder was within judge s discretion; events were related and trial instructions mitigated prejudice |
| Prosecutor s closing comments about tailoring testimony | Prosecutor may point to prior inconsistent statements and argue a defendant s testimony conformed to evidence developed at trial | Comments improperly suggested defendant fabricated testimony in view of witnesses in courtroom | No error: Mendez had prior inconsistent statements; prosecutor fair to attack credibility on that basis |
| Prosecutor s inferences not in evidence (Massie present in victim's car; motive to take puppy) | Prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence (calls arranging meeting, witness seeing both approach victim s car, money found on Massie, dog taken by Mendez) | Assertions were speculative and unsupported by direct evidence | Inferences were reasonable from circumstantial evidence; no misconduct |
| Sufficiency of evidence as to Massie (armed robbery / felony-murder) | Circumstantial evidence supported joint venture in robbery and killing: Massie arranged meeting, walked toward victim with a gun, had the victim s money post-arrest | Cash formatting discrepancy and some untouched items show money did not come from victim; evidence is weak | Evidence was sufficient; discrepancies go to credibility and were for jury to resolve |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. DePeiza, 449 Mass. 367 (reasonable‑suspicion standard for investigative stops)
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 440 Mass. 642 (reasonable‑suspicion must be grounded in specific, articulable facts)
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 430 Mass. 725 (seemingly innocent acts may be considered together for reasonable suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Depina, 456 Mass. 238 (gravity of crime and proximity in time/space relevant to suspicion)
- Commonwealth v. Mercado, 422 Mass. 367 (police may rely on their observations even if some witness descriptions conflict)
- Commonwealth v. Gaudette, 441 Mass. 762 (prosecutor may attack credibility where evidence shows testimony was shaped or changed)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 473 Mass. 379 (factors for joinder: factual similarity, time/space closeness, and admissibility of cross‑evidence)