Commonwealth v. Squires / Commonwealth v. Angier
476 Mass. 703
| Mass. | 2017Background
- Late-night encounter: Norwood police followed footprints from a shopping plaza to MBTA commuter rail tracks and found defendants John F. Squires III and Steven E. Angier walking on the tracks around 11 p.m. in below-freezing weather.
- Items found: Squires had a walkie-talkie and gloves; Angier had a backpack containing a crowbar, large screwdriver/pry bar, black gloves, flashlight, and a second walkie-talkie tuned to the same channel; a sledgehammer was later found in the defendants’ vehicle.
- Map discovered: Officers inventoried a hand-drawn map from Angier’s backpack depicting an L-shaped space with “Going in,” arrows, and multiple Xs; the Commonwealth did not link the map to a specific building or depository.
- Charges, trial, and sentence: Both were convicted by a jury in District Court of walking on railroad tracks (unchallenged on appeal) and possession of burglarious instruments (G. L. c. 266, § 49); each received incarceration and fines.
- Appeals posture and unusual procedural point: Appeals Court affirmed; SJC granted further review. Angier died after review was granted; the court departed from precedent and addressed the appeals on the merits because Squires had incorporated Angier’s arguments and both relied on identical legal claims.
- Holding summary: The SJC reversed the convictions for possession of burglarious instruments, finding the Commonwealth’s evidence insufficient to prove intent to use ordinary tools for burglary of a statutory place.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to use ordinary tools for burglary (G. L. c. 266, § 49) | Commonwealth: tools, late hour, location between commercial buildings, radios, map and gloves permit inference of burglarious intent | Defendants: ordinary tools alone + suspicious presence do not prove intent to burglarize a statutory place beyond reasonable doubt | Reversed: evidence insufficient — Commonwealth failed to prove intent to use tools for burglary of any building/depository beyond speculation |
| Effect of defendant’s death after review granted | Commonwealth: De La Zerda requires vacating further-review order when defendant dies on collateral/further review | Defendants (and Squires’ posture): fairness and joint trial context justify deciding merits | Court departed from De La Zerda on narrow fairness grounds and decided both appeals on merits |
| Admissibility/meaning of map (as evidence of planned burglary) | Commonwealth: map with “Going in,” arrows, Xs supports inference of specific plan to burglarize nearby structure | Defendants: map was not connected to any particular statutory place; ambiguous and insufficient to prove intent | Held: map ambiguous and unconnected to a particular or nearby depository — insufficient to establish intent |
| Need to show target statutory "place" | Commonwealth: need not identify exact place; circumstances can suffice to infer intent | Defendants: must show intent to use tools to break into a building/room/vault or other depository as defined by statute | Held: while exact place need not be identified, Commonwealth must prove intent to burglarize such a place beyond reasonable doubt; that proof was lacking here |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Latimore standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. De La Zerda, 416 Mass. 247 (procedure when defendant dies on further appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 355 Mass. 170 (possession at scene can prove intent when instruments shown used for entry)
- Commonwealth v. Dellinger, 383 Mass. 780 (ordinary tools require stronger circumstantial proof of burglarious intent)
- Commonwealth v. Lao, 443 Mass. 770 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 430 Mass. 725 (suspicious conduct can justify police inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Hogan, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 73 (definition/meaning of "depository" and relevance to § 49)
- Commonwealth v. Fancy, 349 Mass. 196 (verdict cannot rest on conjecture)
- Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 305 Mass. 393 (same principle against conjectural verdicts)
- Commonwealth v. Rousseau, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 144 (sufficient inference of intent without proof of attempted entry in certain circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Tivnon, 8 Gray 375 (historic statement on when possession with design is complete)