Commonwealth v. Simpkins, 2014 WL 7653661

Defendant Adam Simpkins was tried (jointly with three others) for murder of Cordell MacAfee, armed assault with intent to murder Christopher Jones, accessory after the fact to murder, and unlawful possession of firearms.
At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, the jury convicted Simpkins of unlawful possession of firearms and accessory after the fact, but deadlocked on murder and assault charges; the judge declared a mistrial on those counts.
The Commonwealth pursued a theory that Simpkins aided and abetted the shooting (rather than being one of the shooters); evidence showed a white Ford Taurus present at a prior encounter and just before the shooting, fingerprints of Simpkins on that vehicle, and that Simpkins later helped conceal the firearms in his home.
The Commonwealth relied on temporal proximity of the Taurus, prior-week encounter, and the shooters’ flight to Simpkins’s home to infer pre-shooting participation.
Simpkins moved for required findings of not guilty on the murder and assault indictments (denied); he later petitioned under G. L. c. 211, § 3 claiming double jeopardy and collateral estoppel based on his accessory-after-the-fact conviction.
The Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether the evidence presented in the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief was legally sufficient to submit aiding-and-abetting murder/assault to the jury; it held the required-finding motion should have been allowed and directed verdicts of not guilty on those counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal sufficiency of Commonwealth’s evidence to submit aiding-and-abetting murder and assault to the jury	Evidence of the prior-week encounter, presence of the white Ford Taurus at both incidents, temporal proximity, flight to defendant’s home, and concealment of weapons supports an inference of pre-shooting agreement and intent	Evidence only shows presence and post-crime concealment (accessory after the fact); no proof of knowing participation or agreement to commit or plan the shooting	The court reversed: required findings of not guilty should have been entered for murder and assault because the Commonwealth failed to prove pre-shooting knowing participation or shared intent
Collateral estoppel / double jeopardy based on accessory-after-the-fact conviction (whether that conviction bars retrial as a principal)	Commonwealth implicitly argued retrial on principal charges was permitted after mistrial	Defendant argued accessory-after-the-fact conviction precludes retrial for the underlying murder/assault as a matter of law	The court did not decide this claim (rendered moot) because it resolved the sufficiency issue in defendant’s favor

Berry v. Commonwealth, 393 Mass. 793 (1985) (defendant entitled to review of legal sufficiency after mistrial following a denied required-finding motion)
Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (standard for reviewing evidence in Commonwealth’s case-in-chief: view facts in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (2009) (aiding-and-abetting jury instruction describing acts that can establish participation, and limits on mere presence/knowledge)
Commonwealth v. Swafford, 441 Mass. 329 (2004) (limits on inferential leaps from limited circumstantial evidence)
Costarelli v. Commonwealth, 374 Mass. 677 (1978) (collateral estoppel principles in criminal prosecutions)