Commonwealth v. Romero
464 Mass. 648
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Romero was convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm in a vehicle without a license under G. L. c. 269, § 10(a), on a theory of constructive possession.
- On appeal, Romero challenged sufficiency of evidence on knowledge, control, and intent to possess the firearm.
- He argued evidence allowed only equal and inconsistent inferences, and that extraneous evidence was improperly admitted.
- The Commonwealth relied on possession in a vehicle, proximity to the weapon, and statements to show knowledge and control.
- A ballistics certificate was offered to prove the weapon was a firearm, and questions were raised about cross-examination and hearsay.
- A divided Appeals Court affirmed; the Supreme Judicial Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession | Romero argues knowledge, control, and intent not proven beyond a reasonable doubt | Romero contends ownership/operation and proximity are insufficient without more | Sufficiency insufficient; conviction reversed |
| Admissibility of out-of-court statement | Statement admitted to show knowledge of firearm in vehicle | Statement is hearsay and prejudicial | Admissible as nonhearsay state-of-mind admission and for its truth |
| Ballistic certificate and confrontation | Ballistics report helps prove firearm status | Lack of cross-examination violates confrontation | Court did not reach independent ruling on this ground due to disposition on sufficiency |
| Impact of ownership/operation on intent | Ownership/operation supports intent to control | Ownership/operation insufficient without linking evidence | Ownership/operation alone insufficient; no implied intent to possess without more |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Albano, 373 Mass. 132 (Mass. 1977) (limits of ownership in constructive-possession analysis; requires linking evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Brzezinski, 405 Mass. 401 (Mass. 1989) (knowledge coupled with ability and intent to exercise dominion)
- Commonwealth v. Rosa, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 495 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984) (presence plus incriminatory evidence can support control inference)
- Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787 (Mass. 2012) (requires knowledge and control to sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (federal Jackson v. Virginia standard for sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Sespedes, 442 Mass. 95 (Mass. 2004) (presence with access without more not enough for possession)
- Commonwealth v. Boria, 440 Mass. 416 (Mass. 2003) (link between ownership and contraband must be shown by incriminating evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Pratt, 407 Mass. 647 (Mass. 1990) (integrates possession theory with circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Escalera, 462 Mass. 636 (Mass. 2012) (hole-sized linking of restraints to contraband in premises)
- Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 452 Mass. 142 (Mass. 2008) (evidence of proximity and conspicuity supports intent to control)
- Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 461 Mass. 821 (Mass. 2012) (joint-control theory requires more than presence; actions showed intent)
- Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 37 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (nonverbal conduct linking defendant to firearm supports intent)
- Commonwealth v. Locke, 335 Mass. 106 (Mass. 1956) (extrajudicial accusatory statements rule not applicable to own statements)
- Commonwealth v. Montanez, 439 Mass. 441 (Mass. 2003) (state-of-mind admission admissible if not asserting truth)