Insurances.net
insurances.net » Investing » Massachusetts Larceny Charge Insufficient Evidence Surveillance Videotape Lawyers Attorneys
Finance Investing Loans Personal-Finance Taxes Loan quotes
]

Massachusetts Larceny Charge Insufficient Evidence Surveillance Videotape Lawyers Attorneys

COMMONWEALTH vs. TONY AUDET

APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

July 6, 2010, Entered

Represented by new counsel on appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction; the judge committed reversible error by permitting two prosecution witnesses to testify that the person in the surveillance videotape was the defendant; and the judge failed to give adequate identification instructions. The defendant also claimed that his trial counsel was constitutionally inadequate.

Issues:

Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict the defendant of larceny of property valued over $ 250?

Whether the judge committed error by allowing the two Commonwealth witnesses to testify that the person in the surveillance videotape was the defendant?

Whether the judge committed reversible error by failing to give adequate identification instructions and by making comments in his instructions that suggested the defendant was guilty?

Observation and Holding:

The evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom were sufficient to warrant a finding that the defendant was guilty of larceny. The two Commonwealth witnesses, Betti and Officer Derby, who were acquainted with the defendant, identified him as being the person who was seen on the surveillance videotape stealing the mixers. Further, the surveillance videotape was played to the jury and the jurors had the opportunity to observe the defendant in the courtroom. Taken in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the testimony and the surveillance videotape presented sufficient evidence that the defendant had committed larceny from Macy's of property over the value of $ 250.

Because both witnesses testified that they knew the defendant from prior occasions unrelated to the surveillance videotape,their testimony is admissible pursuant to Commonwealth v. Pleas, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 321, 325-327, 729 N.E.2d 642 (2000). Further, Officer Derby testified that when he saw the defendant a few days after he had viewed the surveillance videotape, the defendant was wearing the same clothes that he was seen wearing on the videotape. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the Commonwealth's brief, in particular pages nine through thirteen, we hold there was no error.

Viewing the charge as a whole, the judge adequately instructed the jury on identification, and did not make any improper comments on the defendant's guilt. We have reviewed the instructions and hold that there was no error

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Massachusetts Larceny Charge Insufficient Evidence Surveillance Videotape Lawyers Attorneys

By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
Circumstances When You Need and IRS Tax Lawyer IRS Tax Debt Settlement Lawyers to Help You The IRS, Tax Lawyer, and You When Hiring a Tax Lawyer The Advantages of Making use of an Seasoned Miami Felony Lawyer for Bright white Collar Criminal offense The Retirement Group | No SSI Increase for 2010 Wealth Accumulation to Wealth Preservation | Provided by The Retirement Group: Your Partners In Retirement How Much Retirement Income Will You Really Need? | The Retirement Group Divorce Lawyers In Fredericksburg VA:The Marital Residence Divorce Lawyers Staunton VA:Marital Residence Defense Base Act Lawyer Straight Talk: Why So Many DBA Claimant's Get Ripped Off Divorce Lawyers Roanoke VA:Marital Residence Divorce Lawyers Lynchburg VA:The Marital Residence
Write post print
www.insurances.net guest:  register | login | search IP(3.90.242.249) / Processed in 0.014347 second(s), 5 queries , Gzip enabled debug code: 30 , 4023, 176,
Massachusetts Larceny Charge Insufficient Evidence Surveillance Videotape Lawyers Attorneys