Com. v. Fancy

• Citation: 207 N.E.2d 276,349 Mass. 196
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Arthur A. FANCY et al.
• Decision Date: 04 May 1965
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 276

207 N.E.2d 276

349 Mass. 196

COMMONWEALTH v. Arthur A. FANCY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued March 1, 1965.

Decided May 4, 1965.

Ronald J. Chisholm, Winchester, for defendants.

Dante J. DeMichaelis, Asst. Dist. Atty. (Ruth I. Abrams, Asst. Dist. Atty., with him), for the Commonwealth.

Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, KIRK, SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.

SPALDING, Justice.

I. THE FANCY AND MALONEY INDICTMENTS.

Arthur A. Fancy and William F. Maloney, together with three other defendants (with whom we are not here concerned) were indicted for the larceny on May 15, 1963, of 835 cases of liquor. ¹ Fancy and Maloney were also indicted with the other defendants for conspiracy to commit larceny. The jury returned verdicts of guilty under the larceny and conspiracy indictments. ² Fancy and Maloney (defendants) were sentenced on both indictments. In accordance with G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, they have appealed, assigning as error the denial of their motions to suppress, their motions for severance, and their motions for directed verdicts. The defendants also assign as error the admission of certain evidence. The above mentioned indictments were tried with two indictments against Norman P. MacDonald. In one he was charged with receiving stolen property; in the other he was charged with carrying 'under his control in a motor vehicle a certain firearm, to wit, a revolver.'

We consider first the denial of the defendants' motions for directed verdicts. In doing so we assume, without deciding, that all questions touching the admissibility of evidence would be resolved in favor of the Commonwealth. The evidence in its aspect most favorable to the Commonwealth showed the following: On May 14, 1963, a customs warehouse officer in New York checked a trailer (No. L4530) owned by the M & M. Transportation Company (M & M), which was scheduled to go to Massachusetts. Eight hundred thirty-five cases of whisky had been placed on the trailer. The boxes were numbered and had 'Cutty Sark Scotch whisky' printed on them. After the cases were loaded, the door was closed and the customs officer affixed a customs seal numbered A-151473.

The following day the trailer arrived in Massachusetts and was parked on M & M's lot on Mystic Avenue, Somerville. The trailer was inspected three times that day; the latest check was at 4:15 P.M. At that time the seal was intact. At no time on May 15 was anyone authorized to take the trailer from the premises. On the evening of the same day, the trailer was seen in Everett, it having been parked near the Twin's Cafe.

At about 10:30 P.M., five men entered Twin's Cafe. The bartender on duty at that time was Richard Peterson. The men, only one of whom Peterson recognized, were William J. Zampell, Thomas O'Connell, James F. Meara, and the defendants Fancy and Maloney. All of them engaged in conversation at one end of the bar. At one point, the defendants left and then returned. Peterson never saw the five men leave, either in a group or individually. But he was aware that they all were gone at about 11:15 P.M. When Peterson closed and left the cafe at 12:05 A.M., he noticed the trailer was not where it previously had been.

Two police officers, who were on duty in Everett, watched the trailer from 2:10 A.M. until 4:45 A.M. There was no seal on the latch. One of the officers opened the door and detected an alcoholic odor. Obliterated footprints were seen behind the truck by an F.B.I. agent who had also arrived. At about 4 A.M. a black sedan with a white streak on a rear fender was seen proceeding slowly by the trailer.

The trailer remained parked within 200 feet of Twin's Cafe until 7:30 A.M., when it was driven back to M & M's Somerville lot by one of its employees. At about 8 A.M. a freight claims agent discovered that there were only 763 cases on the truck. On May 20, 1963, a delivery of 763 cases of Cutty Sark whisky was made to Whitehall Liquors, the consignee of the shipment. The truck driver recorded the numbers on the cases and these numbers came within the range of those on the boxes constituting the shipment from New York.

About 1:20 P.M. on May 21, 1963, Somerville police officers went to the residence of James F. Meara, 47A Tufts Street, and they were admitted by Meara. Fancy and Norman P. MacDonald were there. When questioned, Fancy gave a false name. Both he and MacDonald were put under arrest. Meanwhile, Officer Collins went to the Somerville District Court and obtained a search warrant. When he returned to 47A Tufts Street, Fancy and MacDonald had already been taken to the police station. The search which followed uncovered six full bottles, a half a bottle and one empty bottle of Cutty Sark whisky. These were found in a closet in Meara's apartment. Two wooden cases were also found which had the same markings as those on the M & M trailer. Their numbers fell within the range of numbers on the cases which had been shipped from New York. On June 2, 1963, Maloney was arrested at 71 Perkins Street, Somerville.

On the afternoon of May 21 Officer Powers investigated a 1953 black Buick which was parked a short distance from 47A Tufts Street. In the vehicle, which was locked, he saw nails and pieces of wood on the rear floor. He caused the car to be towed to a garage. About nine o'clock the next morning, he searched the car at the garage. It was still locked, but he had obtained keys to open it at the police station from MacDonald's property envelope. Upon opening the car, Powers found wood samples. Under the driver's seat, he also found a revolver with two cartridges in it.

An analysis of the evidence discloses only two circumstances from which an inference might be drawn that Fancy committed or conspired to commit the larceny charged: the episode at Twin's Cafe, and his presence at Meara's apartment where some of the Cutty Sark was found. We are of opinion that this was not enough.

We are aware of the presumption against a defendant who, without a satisfactory exaplanation, has in his possession recently stolen goods. See Commonwealth v. Grace, 265 Mass. 119, 124, 163 N.E. 855; Commonwealth v. Torrealba, 316 Mass. 24, 29, 54 N.E.2d 939; Commonwealth v. Brant, 346 Mass. 202, 205, 190 N.E.2d 900. But it was never established that Fancy ever had any of the Cutty Sark whisky in his possession. The evidence shows only that he was a visitor at an apartment where the liquor was found. We are also mindful that '[i]n order to convict on circumstantial evidence, it is not necessary to show that it was not in the power of any other person than the defendants to commit the crime.' Commonwealth v. Leach, 156 Mass. 99, 101-102, 30 N.E. 163. It is, however, equally well established that 'if, upon all the evidence, the question of the guilt of the defendant is left to conjecture or surmise and has no solid foundation in established facts, a verdict of guilty cannot stand.' Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 305 Mass. 393, 401, 26 N.E.2d 235, 240. When the evidence tends equally to sustain either of two inconsistent propositions, neither of them can be said to have been established by legitimate proof. Commonwealth v. Carter, 306 Nass. 141, 147, 27 N.E.2d 690; Commonwealth v. Smith, 342 Nass. 180, 183, 172 N.E.2d 597. In the case at bar, it can readily be inferred that Fancy associated with persons who committed the larceny, but this does not justify the inference that he participated in the crime. A contrary holding would be tantamount to introducing into our law a doctrine of guilt by association, a policy which we decline to adopt.

The Commonwealth makes much of the point that there is evidence of consciousness of guilt. As stated above, when Fancy was arrested, he gave a false name. Evidence of this sort constitutes an implied admission which may, with other evidence, be sufficient to prove guilt. Commonwealth v. Curry, 341 Nass. 50, 55, 166 N.E.2d 714; Commonwealth v. Swartz, 343 Mass. 709, 713, 180 N.E.2d 685; Commonwealth v. Connors, 345 Mass. 102, 105, 185 N.E.2d 629. But standing alone it is not enough. An implied admission of this sort 'may turn the scale where the evidence is conflicting. But it forms an insufficient foundation for the erection of an entire case by mere inference without other evidence.' Credit Serv. Corp. v. Barker, 308 Mass. 476, 481, 33 N.E.2d 293, 295. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 342 Mass. 180, 184, 172 N.E.2d 597; Hillery v. Hillery, 342 Mass. 371, 375, 173 N.E.2d 269. Here, the 'other evidence' was insufficient. Moreover, the weight to be attributed to the admission is weakened considerably by the fact that Fancy had at least one other motive for concealing his identity, for at that time there was outstanding a warrant for his arrest on a nonsupport charge.

The Commonwealth's case against Maloney was even weaker. He was not present when Fancy and MacDonald were arrested at 47A Tufts Street, the place where some of the Cutty Sark whisky was found. The only evidence linking him to the crime consisted of the following: He had visited Twin's Cafe the night of the crime with all of the defendants except MacDonald. At one point he and Fancy left and returned. Maloney had been seen at the M & M Transportation Company in the month of February. As with Fancy, there was some evidence of consciousness of guilt. ³ For the same reasons detailed above in our discussion of the Commonwealth's case against Fancy, Maloney's motions for directed verdicts under both the larceny and the conspiracy indictments should have been granted.

The judgments are reversed and the verdicts are set aside.

So ordered.

II. THE Mac DONALD INDICTMENT.

Norman P. MacDonald (defendant) was found guilty under an indictment charging a violation of G.L. c. 269, § 10, which reads in material part: 'Whoever * * * carries * * * under his control in a vehicle, a firearm, * * * loaded or unloaded, * * * shall be punished by imprisonment * * *.' The defendant has appealed...