Commonwealth v. Tavares, 144 N.E.3d 268

Victim Gayle Botelho disappeared in October 1988; her skeletal remains were recovered from the defendant Daniel Tavares's backyard in 2000 and identified as hers.
Tavares had a history of violent crime (pled guilty to manslaughter in 1991) and wrote to prosecutors in 2000 claiming knowledge of the victim's body, prompting investigation and discovery of blood in his bedroom and the buried body.
Over time Tavares gave multiple, inconsistent accounts: (1) in 2000 he blamed others; (2) in 2002 he reiterated that others committed the killing; (3) in 2012 he confessed that he alone stabbed the victim after a failed shooting; he later gave further written confessions to several people.
Physical and testimonial corroboration included a bloodstained bedroom floor, a witness who saw Tavares scrubbing blood, a roommate’s observations of blood and tools, and details in confessions not publicly known.
Tavares was indicted in 2013, tried in 2015, convicted of first-degree murder (premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty), sentenced to life, and appealed arguing (1) error for denial of a Croft instruction and (2) that the judge should have granted required findings of not guilty under Croft; he also sought relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judge erred by refusing a Croft-based jury instruction	Commonwealth: No instruction required; Croft is a judge-only standard for required-findings and appellate review	Tavares: Requested Croft-form instruction that if evidence equally sustains inconsistent propositions, neither is established	Denied — Croft does not mandate a jury instruction and such instructions risk confusion; no error in refusing it
Whether judge should have granted a required finding of not guilty under Croft (at close of Commonwealth's case and at trial end)	Commonwealth: Evidence—confessions plus strong corroboration—was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt	Tavares: Evidence equally supports two inconsistent propositions: confession truthful (guilt) or confession false to avoid being a "rat" (innocence) — so required finding required	Denied — evidence not in equipoise; corroboration and other facts permit a rational jury to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Whether appellate court should reduce conviction or order new trial under G. L. c. 278, § 33E	Commonwealth: No basis for relief; trial fair and evidence sufficient	Tavares: Requests § 33E relief on weight/insufficiency grounds	Denied — full review found no basis to reduce sentence or order new trial

Commonwealth v. Croft, 345 Mass. 143 (1962) (articulates rule that when evidence equally sustains two inconsistent propositions, neither is established)
Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 305 Mass. 393 (1940) (quoted in Croft on inconsistent inferences doctrine)
Commonwealth v. Hunt, 462 Mass. 807 (2012) (cautions against instructions about even balance leading to juror confusion)
Commonwealth v. Beverly, 389 Mass. 866 (1983) (same concern about instructions on even balance and reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Cole, 473 Mass. 317 (2015) (standard for reviewing motions for required finding: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 456 Mass. 578 (2010) (examples of insufficiency and interpretation of Croft in context)
Commonwealth v. Merry, 453 Mass. 653 (2009) (jury may credit or discredit conflicting testimony; weight/credibility are for jury)
Commonwealth v. Clifford, 374 Mass. 293 (1978) (jury not required to disbelieve testimony placing defendant at scene)
Commonwealth v. Weaver, 474 Mass. 787 (2016) (confessions may be corroborated; corroboration can make confession admissible and probative)
Commonwealth v. Forde, 392 Mass. 453 (1984) (discusses corroboration and sufficiency issues)