Commonwealth v. Rodriguez
476 Mass. 367
| Mass. | 2017Background
- In 2012 the defendant allegedly was seen in a friend's mother's bedroom and later pictured wearing a missing family ring; the friend later became available to testify that the defendant stole the ring.
- The Commonwealth initially sought complaints for both larceny (G. L. c. 266, § 30(1)) and receipt of stolen property (G. L. c. 266, § 60), but the clerk-magistrate issued only a receipt complaint because the larceny-witness was unavailable earlier.
- At the District Court trial on the receipt charge, a prosecutor-developed witness for larceny appeared after empanelment; the judge refused to allow amendment to add larceny, instructed that a finding the defendant was the thief precluded conviction for receipt, and granted the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty on receipt.
- Weeks later the Commonwealth filed a new complaint charging larceny; the defendant moved to dismiss on double jeopardy and related equitable grounds; a judge granted the motion to dismiss the larceny complaint and the Commonwealth appealed.
- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding double jeopardy did not bar the larceny prosecution and that equitable doctrines (due process/vindictiveness, collateral estoppel, judicial estoppel) did not require dismissal given the procedural history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an acquittal on receipt of stolen property bars later prosecution for larceny of same property | Commonwealth: same elements test controls; larceny and receipt are distinct offenses so reprosecution is allowed | Rodriguez: prior acquittal on receipt should bar larceny prosecution (same conduct/same facts), or alternative equitable relief | Held: Use same elements test; larceny and receipt have different elements, so double jeopardy does not bar the larceny charge |
| Appropriate double jeopardy test for successive prosecutions | Commonwealth: apply same elements (Blockburger/Morey) | Rodriguez: apply same conduct/evidence test to protect against harassment | Held: Reject same conduct test (Grady overruled); adhere to same elements test (Dixon, Morey tradition) |
| Whether prosecutorial vindictiveness or due process bars reprosecution | Commonwealth: no vindictiveness; second complaint followed judge’s erroneous acquittal and late witness availability | Rodriguez: reprosecution is vindictive and punitive | Held: No showing of likely vindictiveness; due process does not bar reprosecution |
| Whether collateral or judicial estoppel precludes larceny prosecution | Commonwealth: prior proceeding did not decide an element of larceny; no favorable judicial determination to estop prosecution | Rodriguez: acquittal on receipt decided facts so relitigation is barred | Held: Collateral estoppel inapplicable because the directed verdict was only on receipt (not an element of larceny); judicial estoppel inapplicable because Commonwealth did not secure a favorable decision on the same theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433 (Mass. 1871) (articulates same elements test for successive prosecutions)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (adopts same elements test under the Double Jeopardy Clause)
- United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (overrules Grady and confirms same elements test for successive prosecutions)
- Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (U.S. 1990) (adopted a same-conduct/evidence test later overruled by Dixon)
- Commonwealth v. Woods, 414 Mass. 343 (Mass. 1993) (applied Grady prior to Dixon)
- Commonwealth v. Vick, 454 Mass. 418 (Mass. 2009) (discusses limits of conduct-based tests and treatment of lesser-included offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Corcoran, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 123 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007) (receipt may be proved with evidence showing defendant was the thief)
- Commonwealth v. Haskins, 128 Mass. 60 (Mass. 1880) (historical rule allowing separate charges for larceny and receipt)