Commonwealth v. Ryan
79 Mass. App. Ct. 179
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Morales, who worked at Bernard! Honda, loaned the defendant her debit card for a utility issue; the defendant used Morales’s card without consent to make multiple purchases totaling over $250.
- The defendant urged Chadwick’s online clothing purchases and later arranged a second order to Morales’s address, facilitating further use of Morales’s card.
- Morales discovered a Chadwick’s order for $1,200, prompting an investigation into unauthorized charges (including a Pizza Plus charge).
- The defendant was a work-release inmate at MCI Framingham, which the jury considered relevant to motive, intent, and conduct.
- The Commonwealth charged the defendant with larceny over $250, fraudulent use of a credit card, and identity fraud; the judge sentenced her as a common and notorious thief after a jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for credit card fraud | Commonwealth argues evidence shows debit card used without Morales’s consent and to obtain value over $250 | Ryan contends debit card isn’t a credit card; insufficient on-credit element | Sufficient evidence; debit card fits within statutory definition of credit card for §37C. |
| Common and notorious thief determination | Commonwealth asserts two qualifying scenarios exist under §40 | Ryan contends not three larcenies at same sitting | Statute permits both scenarios; conviction valid under either pathway. |
| Need for specific unanimity instruction | Commonwealth relied on single continuing episode; no need for unanimity on discrete acts | Ryan seeks specific unanimity for separate acts | No specific unanimity instruction required; single continuing course of conduct. |
| Jury instruction on credit card fraud | Court correctly instructed on elements including lack of consent and intent to defraud | Ryan wanted broader wording distinguishing express vs implied consent | Instruction adequate; not required to use requested language. |
| Admission of work-release and related evidence | Evidence relevant to motive, intent, and opportunity; limited use instructed | No abuse; admission warranted and not prejudicial in view of overwhelming evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Roucoulet, 413 Mass. 647 (1992) (statutory interpretation for credit card fraud context; broad construction favored)
- Commonwealth v. Kneram, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 371 (2005) (credit card/ debit card implications in §37A-37C analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Santos, 440 Mass. 281 (2003) (specific unanimity when multiple discrete incidents; or single episode analysis)
- Commonwealth v. England, 350 Mass. 83 (1966) (continuing larcenous scheme; no unanimity required for single episode)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 427 Mass. 59 (1998) (dealing with interpretation of credit card/ debit card misuse)