Com. v. DeCologero

Decision Date30 January 1985
Citation473 N.E.2d 219,19 Mass.App.Ct. 956
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. Paul A. DeCOLOGERO, (and two companion cases 1 ).
CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts

John C. McBride, Marblehead, for defendants.

Mary Ellen O'Sullivan, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

Before GREANEY, C.J., and DREBEN and FINE, JJ.

RESCRIPT

These appeals challenge the validity of the indictments brought against one of the defendants and claims that a search warrant which led to the discovery of incriminating evidence was defective. We affirm the convictions of both defendants.

1. Validity of Indictments Against Paul DeCologero.

Paul was convicted in a jury-waived trial of concealing an insured motor vehicle with intent to defraud the insurer and of making false statements to the insurer in connection with a claim under a motor vehicle policy. Prior to trial he filed a motion to dismiss the indictments 2 asserting, citing Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160, 163-164, 430 N.E.2d 1195 (1982), that there was no evidence before the grand jury of his participation in any criminal activity.

The following account was presented to the grand jury through the testimony of two police officers, Lothrop Hedge and Philip Ryan. Paul is Anthony's nephew, and the two men worked "at the same place of employment." In June of 1981, Paul reported that his 1977 Cadillac had been stolen and made a written claim of loss to his insurance company. On August 8, 1981, Paul's Cadillac was found in a ditch, one mile south of Anthony's beach residence in Manomet. When examined at a garage on August 10, 1981, by Officer Hedge, the car had a hole cut in its roof and its interior had been stripped and partially burned. The car contained much beach sand, had no license plate, no keys, and its ignition had not been "popped."

The car and the name DeCologero reminded Hedge of an unrelated incident some fifteen days earlier when he had seen a "car very similar to this Cadillac" in the driveway of Anthony's summer house. Hedge drove to Anthony's summer residence where in the driveway, he saw charred red material, "much the same" as the interior of the Cadillac, and vinyl material which "appeared the same as the vinyl material" covering the car's roof. He obtained a search warrant and, accompanied by Ryan, searched the house, where they found Paul's license plate for the Cadillac, the car's radio and a piece of metal from its roof. Another stolen vehicle was also found in Anthony's driveway.

The relevant standard for analyzing Paul's claim that he has not been sufficiently linked to the concealment of the automobile is whether the indictment is "supported by evidence sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest." Commonwealth v. O'Dell, 392 Mass. 445, 450-452, 466 N.E.2d 828 (1984). Commonwealth v. Botto, 19 Mass.App. 938, 472 N.E.2d 977 (1985). Is there "reasonably trustworthy information ... sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant had committed ... an offense?" Commonwealth v. O'Dell, supra 392 Mass. at 450, 466 N.E.2d 828, quoting from Commonwealth v. Stevens, 362 Mass. 24, 26, 283 N.E.2d 673 (1972).

"In dealing with probable cause ... we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act." Commonwealth v. Hason, 387 Mass. 169, 174, 439 N.E.2d 251 (1982), quoting from Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949). In weighing probabilities, we think it appropriate to take into account normal familial ties. Reasonably prudent persons recognize that there is some affinity between uncles and nephews. Here, the two men were not only related, but they also worked together. We also note that Paul's purportedly stolen car with its ignition intact remained parked for a considerable length of time in his uncle's driveway open to view.

Although the links between Paul and the theft, as presented to the grand jury, would not warrant a finding of guilty, see Commonwealth v. Iannello, 344 Mass. 723, 738-739, 184 N.E.2d 364 (1962); cf. Commonwealth v. Derry, 221 Mass. 45, 48-49, 108 N.E. 890 (1915), "[p]robable cause does not require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction." Commonwealth v. O'Dell, 392 Mass. at 451, 466 N.E.2d 826, quoting from Smith, Criminal Practice and Procedure § 104 (2d ed. 1983). There is a large "difference between what is required to prove guilt in a criminal case and what is required to show probable cause for arrest or search .... There is ... a like difference in the quanta and modes of proof required to establish them." Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. at 173, 69 S.Ct. at 173. The "requirement of sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the accused and probable cause to arrest him is considerably less exacting." O'Dell, 392 Mass. at 451, 466 N.E.2d 826. See also Commonwealth v. Hason, 387 Mass. at 175, 439 N.E.2d 251. While the question is admittedly close, we think there was sufficient "reasonably trustworthy information" for a prudent person to believe that Paul had participated in the offenses. Commonwealth v. O'Dell, 392 Mass. at 450, 466 N.E.2d 826. See Commonwealth v. Francil, 15 Mass.App. 35, 37, 443 N.E.2d 420 (1982). Contrast Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. at 163-164, 430 N.E.2d 1195.

2. Validity of the Search Warrant.

(a) The defendants' claim that probable cause was lacking to issue the warrant to search Anthony's house for the license plate and other missing portions of Paul's Cadillac is without merit. Officer Ryan's affidavit described the vandalized car, its missing parts, Hedge's previous observation of the car at Anthony's house, and what was found in Anthony's driveway. The affidavit specified the items sought (plate, keys,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Com. v. Brzezinski
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • July 13, 1989
    ...... sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant had committed ... an offense[.]" Commonwealth v. DeCologero, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 956, 957, 473 N.E.2d 219 (1985), quoting Commonwealth v. O'Dell, supra 392 Mass. at 450, 466 N.E.2d There was sufficient evidence to warrant t......
  • Com. v. Truax
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1986
    ...authority requires the affiant to sign pages attached to the warrant application. G.L. c. 276, § 1. See Commonwealth v. DeCologero, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 956, 959, 473 N.E.2d 219 (1985) (court makes no comment on affiant's failure to sign one of two pages attached to warrant application as affect......
  • Com. v. Bass
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • September 3, 1987
    ...did not affect the validity of the warrant." Id. at 179, 490 N.E.2d 425 (citations omitted). See also Commonwealth v. DeCologero, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 956, 959, 473 N.E.2d 219 (1985). To be sure, in Truax, the affiant wrote in the blank on the application form "see attached page" and the court i......
  • Forrey v. Dedham Taxi, Inc.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • January 30, 1985
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT