Commonwealth v. Mora
477 Mass. 399
Mass.2017Background
- Police observed an apparent hand-to-hand drug transaction at a convenience‑store parking lot; about 30 minutes later the defendant (driver), the suspected dealer, and a woman left together in a station wagon and were stopped.
- A patfrisk of the defendant and a vehicle sweep produced hypodermic needles and drug paraphernalia; officers also found a small heavy metal "Fort Knox" safe on the vehicle floor behind the driver's seat.
- The defendant was arrested for driving with a suspended license; the vehicle was towed and the safe taken in an inventory search; officers believed the safe was designed to hold pistols.
- A Worcester officer swore an affidavit seeking a warrant to search the safe, relying on training/experience that dealers hide contraband and that addicts steal to fund their habits; the magistrate issued a warrant.
- The search yielded a handgun, magazine, ammunition, two pill bottles with the defendant's name, and needles; indictments followed including armed career criminal enhancements under G. L. c. 269, § 10G(b).
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress and denied his motion to dismiss the § 10G enhancements; the SJC reviewed both issues on interlocutory and § 211 review.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Mora's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant for the safe | Affidavit established probable cause: observed drug dealing in lot, safe designed to secure pistols, and officers’ experience finding contraband in safes | Affidavit failed to connect criminal activity to this specific safe/vehicle or to show defendant was a dealer; therefore no nexus for probable cause | Warrant invalid; affidavit lacked nexus between suspected criminality and the safe; suppression required |
| Timeliness of interlocutory appeal filing | Trial judge exceeded authority granting a second extension for application to single justice | Trial judge had discretion under Mass. R. Crim. P. 15(b)(1) to allow additional time; filing was timely | Defendant’s application was timely; trial judge acted within discretion |
| Sufficiency of grand jury evidence for § 10G enhancements (robbery predicate) | A prior robbery conviction suffices to show a violent crime predicate for enhancement | Robbery can be committed by means (assault and putting in fear) that do not necessarily involve "physical force" as defined; Commonwealth needed evidence of circumstances showing use/threatened use of physical force | Enhancement dismissed; grand jury presented only conviction record without evidence showing robbery involved physical force required by the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. O'Day, 440 Mass. 296 (search‑warrant affidavit review begins and ends with affidavit)
- Commonwealth v. Foster, 471 Mass. 236 (de novo review of probable cause in search‑warrant affidavits)
- Commonwealth v. Jordan, 469 Mass. 134 (limitations and source of authority to extend appellate filing times)
- Commonwealth v. Eberhart, 461 Mass. 809 (definition of "physical force" for violent‑crime analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 362 Mass. 83 (robbery by force or by assault and putting in fear; degree of force immaterial)
- Commonwealth v. Edwards, 476 Mass. 341 (licensed firearm secured in safe undermines inference of illegal possession)
- Commonwealth v. Beal, 474 Mass. 341 (construction and limits of violent‑crime definitions)