Commonwealth v. Rakes, 82 N.E.3d 403

Background

In 1987 two people (Schlosser and Buchannan) were bound with duct tape and shot dead in a Westwood home; no eyewitnesses or murder weapon found and no physical linkage to defendants.
James P. Ridge later told acquaintances he and others entered the house to rob it, bound the victims, and he shot them when one recognized him; Ridge was convicted earlier; Patricia Rakes pleaded to manslaughter; defendant James M. Rakes tried separately and convicted in 2005 as a joint venturer of two counts of first‑degree murder (felony‑murder, deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity/cruelty).
Key inculpatory evidence: (1) Ridge’s out‑of‑court statements to Trundley and others describing the robbery and implicating Rakes; (2) a 1992 report that Rakes told his then girlfriend he had killed two people; (3) jailhouse statements in 2002 by Ridge and by Rakes to a fellow inmate referencing each other.
Pretrial challenges included motions to dismiss indictments for insufficient grand jury evidence and for alleged grand jury impairment (withheld exculpatory information, improper prior‑bad‑acts references, and comment on invocation of silence); trial objections included hearsay, prior‑incarceration records, courtroom closure during empanelment, prosecutor misconduct in closing, and the reasonable‑doubt instruction.
The trial and posttrial motions were denied; the SJC affirmed the convictions and denial of a new trial and declined relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Rakes's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of grand jury evidence to indict	Hearsay statements (Karos, Trundley, Bergin) provided probable cause linking Rakes to joint venture	Evidence was only hearsay and insufficient to establish probable cause	Grand jury evidence (even if hearsay) was sufficient; indictment not dismissed
Grand jury integrity — withheld exculpatory evidence	No withheld material that would have distorted proceedings or materially undermined witnesses	Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory info (Bergin’s drug history; FBI Agent Connolly’s indictments)	Withheld items were not so material as to require dismissal; no impairment
Admission of coventurer (Ridge) statements	Ridge’s statements admissible under joint‑venture exception (made during/ in furtherance or to conceal the crime)	Statements were hearsay, too remote in time or not in furtherance of any joint venture	Trial judge properly admitted those statements after finding independent evidence of a joint venture; statements also admissible as intent/concealment evidence
Sufficiency of trial evidence to sustain three theories of first‑degree murder	Circumstantial evidence and admitted statements established joint venture, knowledge of armed coventurer, shared intent to kill, and cruelty factors	Evidence was circumstantial and speculative; insufficient to prove joint venturer liability or specific intent to kill	Viewing evidence favorably to Commonwealth, a rational jury could find felony‑murder, deliberate premeditation, and extreme atrocity/cruelty beyond a reasonable doubt

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Levesque, 436 Mass. 443 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of grand jury evidence)
Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160 (probable cause standard for indictments)
Commonwealth v. O'Dell, 392 Mass. 445 (grand jury exculpatory‑evidence rule)
Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 474 Mass. 372 (indictments may be based solely on hearsay)
Commonwealth v. Bright, 463 Mass. 421 (joint‑venturer hearsay exception — prerequisites and procedure)
Commonwealth v. Winquist, 474 Mass. 517 (continuing concealment can keep joint‑venture exception applicable over time)
Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (formulation of joint‑venture standard and intent requirement)
Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence at trial)
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 475 Mass. 396 (deliberate premeditation elements)
Commonwealth v. Cunneen, 389 Mass. 216 (factors supporting extreme atrocity or cruelty)