Renaud v. Commonwealth, 471 Mass. 315

Ronald Renaud was convicted in District Court of malicious destruction of property, breaking and entering, and larceny; he served over 490 days before appeal.
At trial the Commonwealth's primary evidence was an EBT card bearing Renaud's name found (in three taped pieces) on the floor of the burglarized home's living room; no eyewitness saw the crime.
Police recognized Renaud's name, called his cell phone the next day, and told him the card had been found; he did not retrieve the card from the station.
The Appeals Court reversed, holding the evidence insufficient to prove Renaud was the person who committed the crimes because ownership of the card did not show he possessed it during the offenses.
Renaud sued under G. L. c. 258D (erroneous convictions statute) seeking compensation; the Commonwealth moved to dismiss, arguing he was not eligible because the reversal did not "tend to establish" his innocence.
The Supreme Judicial Court considered whether a reversal for insufficient evidence as to identity can satisfy the statute's eligibility threshold.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a reversal for insufficient evidence on identity satisfies the §1(B)(ii) eligibility requirement that relief be granted on "grounds which tend to establish" innocence	Reversal based on insufficiency of evidence of identity is probative of innocence and thus meets the eligibility threshold	Insufficient-evidence reversals do not necessarily tend to establish actual innocence; categorical rule that they cannot satisfy §1(B)(ii)	Reversal for insufficiency as to identity does satisfy §1(B)(ii) when the lack of evidence on identity is probative that the claimant did not commit the crime; denial of motion to dismiss affirmed
Whether eligibility requires the claimant to be "in fact innocent" (i.e., merits-level finding)	Eligibility is a distinct threshold and does not require proof of actual innocence at the pleadings stage	Eligibility should be limited to those actually innocent; the Commonwealth conflates threshold with merits	Eligibility and merits are separate; claimant need only show reversal on grounds that tend to establish innocence to pass threshold; actual innocence must be proved at trial by clear and convincing evidence

Irwin v. Commonwealth, 465 Mass. 834 (statute interpretation: eligibility threshold distinct from merits; present execution doctrine)
Guzman v. Commonwealth, 458 Mass. 354 (grounds which "tend to establish" innocence require facts probative that claimant did not commit the crime)
Drumgold v. Commonwealth, 458 Mass. 367 (newly discovered evidence and its effect on retrial)
Commonwealth v. Stuckich, 450 Mass. 449 (prearrest/detective conduct and consciousness of guilt instruction)
Commonwealth v. Renaud, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 261 (appeals court decision reversing convictions for insufficiency of evidence of identity)