Commonwealth v. Tejeda
41 N.E.3d 721
Mass.2015Background
- On Jan. 14, 2012, Robinson Tejeda drove Christopher Pichardo and Stephane Etienne to a Dorchester residence to buy marijuana; Pichardo and Etienne entered the house and Tejeda remained in the parked vehicle.
- Inside, Pichardo produced a handgun during what became an attempted robbery; the seller, Reynoso, produced a gun and shots were exchanged. Pichardo was shot and later died.
- Etienne took Pichardo’s gun and phone and returned to the vehicle; Tejeda later called 911 from Pichardo’s phone. Police found about thirty one-ounce bags of marijuana in the vehicle’s trunk.
- A jury convicted Tejeda of second-degree murder on a felony-murder theory (armed robbery as the underlying felony), armed robbery of Santiago, home invasion, and possession with intent to distribute; he was acquitted of the armed robbery of Reynoso and of illegal firearm possession.
- The trial judge granted a postverdict judgment of acquittal on the felony-murder count (allowing a required-finding motion) but denied relief on the remaining convictions; the Commonwealth appealed and the defendant cross-appealed; the SJC granted direct review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's (Commonwealth) Argument | Defendant's (Tejeda) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a joint venturer can be guilty of felony-murder when the person who causes the death was resisting the felony (not a co-felon) | Felony-murder should extend under a proximate-cause theory: a felon is vicariously liable for deaths proximately caused by the felony even if caused by a resistor; foreseeability suffices | Vicarious felony-murder liability is limited to killings by the defendant or by co-venturers acting in furtherance of the joint venture; not liable for acts of persons resisting the felony | The court held the defendant cannot be convicted of felony-murder for a death caused by someone resisting the felony; affirmed the judgment of acquittal on felony-murder |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Tejeda knew of the planned robbery and that an accomplice was armed | (Implicit) Evidence and inferences from statements and circumstances supported felony and knowledge of an armed accomplice | Tejeda argued the trip was only to buy marijuana and he lacked knowledge of a robbery or that accomplices were armed | The court held the evidence viewed in the Commonwealth’s favor was sufficient for armed robbery and home invasion convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Campbell, 7 Allen 541 (1863) (vicarious felony-murder limited to acts by defendant or those acting in concert)
- Commonwealth v. Balliro, 349 Mass. 505 (1965) (reaffirming Campbell: felon not liable for death caused by someone resisting the felony)
- Commonwealth v. Hanright, 466 Mass. 303 (2013) (limits on vicarious liability for crimes not committed in furtherance of the joint venture)
- Commonwealth v. Lucien, 440 Mass. 658 (2004) (felony-murder vicarious-liability principles)
- Commonwealth v. Matchett, 386 Mass. 492 (1982) (discussion of constructive malice and criticisms of felony-murder)
- Commonwealth v. Richards, 363 Mass. 299 (1973) (rejecting automatic joint venturer liability for all consequences of a joint enterprise)
- Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (2009) (joint venture and accomplice liability principles)
- Commonwealth v. Benitez, 464 Mass. 686 (2013) (elements of aiding/abetting and knowledge of accomplice’s weapon)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 425 Mass. 491 (1997) (analyzed liability where defendant engaged in a shootout; distinguishes theories of liability)