31 N.E.3d 1167
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- On Oct. 30–31, 2011, a man used a counterfeit $100 bill to buy $30 of gasoline at West Main Gas (Barnstable) and drove off when the clerk said the bill was fake.
- About three hours later police stopped an SUV about one mile away; a woman was driving and the defendant, Daniel D. Tavares, was the passenger.
- Officers discovered two counterfeit $100 bills in the vehicle: one in the defendant’s pocket and one in the center console; both matched the bill used at the station and shared the same serial number.
- The counterfeit bills were patently poor quality (two sheets glued together); the jury examined the exhibits and found them fake.
- The defendant was convicted by a jury of uttering a counterfeit note, possessing counterfeit currency, and larceny by false pretenses; he moved for a required finding of not guilty, which the judge denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity: Was there sufficient evidence to identify Tavares as the person who passed the counterfeit bill at the gas station? | Commonwealth: Circumstantial evidence (same unique counterfeit bills with identical serial numbers, close time and location, same vehicle type and two occupants, officers’ IDs) ties Tavares to the gas‑station incident. | Tavares: Clerk did not identify him at trial; circumstantial link between stop and gas purchase is insufficient to prove he was the purchaser beyond a reasonable doubt. | Affirmed. A rational jury could infer identity from the totality of circumstantial evidence. |
| Knowledge: Was there sufficient evidence that Tavares knew the bills were counterfeit? | Commonwealth: Bills were patently fake; use of a $100 for a $30 purchase, immediate flight when confronted, and possession of identical fakes support an inference of knowledge. | Tavares: (raised on appeal) Commonwealth failed to prove he knew the bills were counterfeit. | Affirmed. Jury reasonably could infer knowledge from the bills’ appearance, conduct, and surrounding circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 774 (circumstantial evidence can support knowledge of counterfeit bills)
- Commonwealth v. Casale, 381 Mass. 167 (permissible reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Henault, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 8 (circumstantial-evidence identity sufficiency example)
- United States v. Rice, 652 F.2d 521 (federal precedent supporting inference of knowledge from circumstances)