Com. v. Moran

• Decision Date: 22 May 2009
• Docket Number: SJC-10252
• Citation: 906 N.E.2d 343,453 Mass. 880
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Sean P. MORAN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

906 N.E.2d 343

453 Mass. 880

COMMONWEALTH v. Sean P. MORAN.

SJC-10252

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued February 3, 2009.

Decided May 22, 2009.

Varsha Kukafka, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

John D. Cheverie for the defendant.

Present: MARSHALL, C.J., SPINA, COWIN, CORDY, BOTSFORD, & GANTS, JJ.

BOTSFORD, J.

A judge in the Superior Court dismissed an indictment against the defendant charging him with armed assault with intent to murder his girl friend in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 18 (b).¹ The issue raised in this appeal by the Commonwealth is whether the indictment was properly dismissed on the ground that there was insufficient evidence presented to the grand jury on one element of the crime: a specific intent to kill. Because we conclude that the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to prosecute the defendant for armed assault with intent to murder, we reverse the order of the Superior Court.

1. Background. On January 17, 2008, a grand jury returned indictments against the defendant for several crimes, including armed assault with intent to murder.² All the charges arose out of a series of altercations between the defendant and his then girl friend, Kristen Chipman, that are alleged to have occurred in 2006 and 2007. Evidence presented to the grand jury included the following.³ During the time period in question, the defendant was employed as a police officer in Duxbury, Chipman was a police officer in Milton, and they were romantically involved. On July 4, 2006, the defendant was driving Chipman home from a fireworks display when they got into an argument. They arrived at Chipman's home where they continued arguing in the garage; the argument ended with the defendant shoving Chipman against the garage wall. Nonetheless, their relationship continued, and some time later, the defendant and Chipman bought a home together in Quincy. By that time they had been dating for eight months.

The defendant's thirtieth birthday was October 18, 2007. Several of the defendant's friends took him out for an evening celebration on October 17, 2007. Chipman did not attend the celebration, but was instead on duty as a patrol officer in Milton during the night shift. Around 1:30 A.M., the middle of her shift, Chipman took a break and returned home to let her dog out. She arrived in her police uniform, and was carrying her department-issued, loaded gun holstered in her uniform safety belt, as well as her police radio. When she entered the house, she met the defendant in their bedroom, and they argued. The defendant called her a "cunt," and she slapped him across the face. The defendant responded by pulling the alarm clock from the wall and throwing it at Chipman, who then ran out of the bedroom and down the stairs with the defendant chasing after her. He grabbed her arms, threw her on the couch, and continued to yell at her. He then threw her on the floor where she landed on her back and hit her head. She managed to get up and move away from the defendant. The defendant went into the dining room where he turned over the glass-top dining room table, which shattered on hitting the floor. Chipman attempted to take a photograph of the property damage using her cellular telephone, but the defendant tore the telephone away before she was able to do so. The defendant then ran upstairs to grab his police-issued gun from the "lock box" in a spare room. He went downstairs with his gun, held it to his head, and threatened to kill himself. Chipman asked him to put down the gun; he unloaded his gun and threw it down hard enough to leave a dent in the floor. Chipman then ran to the breezeway, where the defendant followed her and continued to yell at her. She warned the defendant that she was going to call her lieutenant on her police radio. In response, the defendant took her radio, threw it on the ground, and threatened to kill her and himself, telling Chipman that the lieutenant would not be able to get into their house. Then the defendant moved behind Chipman, grabbed for her gun holstered in her belt, and wrestled the gun away from her. He faced Chipman, pointed the gun at her head, and ordered her "to get out of the house or else he would fing kill [her]." Chipman said, "Sean, stop. Drop the gun. Sean, please stop." The defendant dropped the gun, Chipman grabbed it, took her dog, got into her police cruiser, and left the house. She returned to work. Around 7:30 A.M., Chipman returned to the house after her shift and attempted to get some sleep. The defendant woke her up, grabbed her arms, shook her, and yelled, "I hate you." She ran outside the house; the defendant chased and caught up to her and then twice attempted to throw her into their covered pool. The defendant went inside and yelled for Chipman to join him there so the neighbors could not see them. Chipman telephoned her mother, requesting that she come over. Chipman's mother arrived, and told the defendant to leave the house and stay with his parents for a few days. The defendant left.⁴

Following the defendant's arraignment, he moved to dismiss the indictment for armed assault with intent to murder, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence pursuant to Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160, 163, 430 N.E.2d 1195 (1982) (McCarthy).⁵ After a hearing, the judge allowed the motion. She reasoned that the crime required proof "of a specific intent to kill the victim in the course of assaulting her," and that the evidence presented to the grand jury was insufficient with respect to this element. The Commonwealth then filed a petition for relief pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3, in the county court, and a single justice reported the case to this court without decision.⁶

2. Discussion. The standard delineated in McCarthy governs our analysis in this case: "[A]t the very least the grand jury must hear sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the accused ... and probable cause to arrest him" (citations omitted). McCarthy, 385 Mass. at 163, 430 N.E.2d 1195. See Commonwealth v. Stevens, 362 Mass. 24, 26, 283 N.E.2d 673 (1972), quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964) (describing probable cause to arrest as "reasonably trustworthy information ... sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant had committed or was committing an offense").

The McCarthy case must be considered against the backdrop of our time-honored rule that courts ordinarily do not "inquire into the competency or sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury." Commonwealth v. Robinson, 373 Mass. 591, 592, 368 N.E.2d 1210 (1977), quoting Commonwealth v. Galvin, 323 Mass. 205, 211-212, 80 N.E.2d 825 (1948). See Commonwealth v. Coonan, 428 Mass. 823, 825, 705 N.E.2d 599 (1999); Commonwealth v. O'Dell, 392 Mass. 445, 450-451, 466 N.E.2d 828 (1984).⁷ McCarthy represents an exception to that rule; fundamental considerations of fairness require that a court dismiss an indictment where, as in McCarthy itself, the "grand jury receives no evidence of criminality on the part of the accused." Commonwealth v. Coonan, supra, quoting Commonwealth v. Angiulo, 415 Mass. 502, 510, 615 N.E.2d 155 (1993). See McCarthy, 385 Mass. at 163, 430 N.E.2d 1195; Connor v. Commonwealth, 363 Mass. 572, 577-578, 296 N.E.2d 172 (1973). See also Commonwealth v. Truong Vo Tam, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 31, 36-37, 725 N.E.2d 590 (2000). This case does not present an instance warranting judicial intrusion into the grand jury's proceedings or determination.

The crime of armed assault with intent to murder has three elements: assault; intent to kill; and malice, which in this context means an absence of justification, excuse, or mitigation. See Commonwealth v. Henson, 394 Mass. 584, 591, 476 N.E.2d 947 (1985). Accord Commonwealth v. Johnston, 446 Mass. 555, 558, 845 N.E.2d 350 (2006). The grand jury must be presented with evidence on each of the three elements, but the defendant here challenges only the evidence concerning the element of intent. The evidence of the defendant's intent included the defendant's own threatening statement that he "would fing kill [Chipman]" if she did not leave the house. Even if these words would not be adequate in themselves to demonstrate an intent to kill, they were uttered while the defendant pointed Chipman's loaded gun—which he had forcefully wrested from her—at her head. Moreover, the evidence indicated that the words were preceded by a series of extremely violent acts by the defendant, acts that included throwing Chipman on the floor, turning over a glass-topped table with enough force to cause the glass to shatter, tearing her cellular telephone from her hands, grabbing her police radio and throwing it on the ground, and the defendant's grabbing his own gun and threatening to kill himself as well as Chipman. Finally, the evidence reflected a pattern of violence by the defendant toward Chipman, beginning more than one year earlier, and continuing beyond the October 18 incident into November, 2007. See note 4, supra. Cf. Commonwealth v. White, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 193, 201, 800 N.E.2d 712 (2003) (in affirming conviction of assault with intent to murder his girl friend, court concluded that "the jury could certainly consider the mode of assault as consistent with a pattern of increasingly severe acts of violence by the defendant"). Cf. also Commonwealth v. Jordan (No. 1), 397 Mass. 489, 492, 492 N.E.2d 349 (1986).

Direct evidence of a person's specific intent is not always available, but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances presented. See Commonwealth v. Gollman, 436 Mass. 111, 116, 762 N.E.2d 847 (2002); Commonwealth v. Casale, 381 Mass. 167, 173, 408 N.E.2d 841 (1980). Appropriately considered in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, see Commonwealth v. Levesque, 436 Mass. 443, 444, 766 N.E.2d 50 (2002), the evidence before the grand jury warranted a finding of probable cause that the...