King v. MacEachern
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23924
1st Cir.2011Background
- Michael King was convicted in Massachusetts state court of armed robbery, assault and battery, and witness intimidation following a midnight 2003 robbery at DB Mart in Springfield.
- King, a regular customer, assaulted clerk Jacques, struck him, placed him in a choke hold, and removed about $1,400 from the cash register, after demanding access to the register.
- King warned Jacques he would shoot if he moved, and subsequently left with Jacques's bicycle; police later arrested King the following day, Sept. 11, 2003, with no weapon found on him.
- Massachusetts Appeals Court (MAC) affirmed the convictions, holding evidence could support a weapon inference from the threats and the time gap before arrest, and that the witness intimidation statute could apply to future information furnished to investigators.
- King sought further review in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which denied review; King then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging sufficiency of evidence for armed robbery and witness intimidation.
- The district court denied relief; the First Circuit affirmed, applying AEDPA standards to review for unreasonable application of federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict armed robbery? | King contends no weapon was shown; only verbal threat. No rational jury could find armed robbery. | MAC fairly inferred possession of a weapon from threat plus opportunity to dispose prior to arrest; Delgado/Latimore support inference-rule. | No unreasonable application; rational juror could find weapon possession. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict witness intimidation? | Statute requires current attempts to communicate; threat aimed at media does not interfere with furnishing information to investigators. | Statute covers broader purpose to deter future information; timing and circumstances support interference. | No unreasonable application; surrounding circumstances support intent to deter future testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tevlin, 741 N.E.2d 827 (Mass. 2001) (defines armed robbery elements; weapon need not be displayed)
- Commonwealth v. Delgado, 326 N.E.2d 716 (Mass. 1975) (permitting taking defendant's statement as evidence of weapon possession)
- Commonwealth v. Samuel Jackson, 647 N.E.2d 401 (Mass. 1995) (arrest timing compared to Delgado; infer weapon fact)
- Commonwealth v. Howard, 436 N.E.2d 1211 (Mass. 1982) (no inference of armed status where arrested at scene with no weapon)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 393 N.E.2d 370 (Mass. 1979) (Jackson-based sufficiency standard in Massachusetts context)
- Commonwealth v. Burt, 663 N.E.2d 271 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996) (witness intimidation includes pre-proceeding interference)
- Commonwealth v. Belle Isle, 694 N.E.2d 5 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998) (witness intimidation scope beyond present intent to contact police)