Commonwealth v. Curry
| Decision Date | 29 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | 18-P-175 |
| Citation | 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1113,144 N.E.3d 330 (Table) |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Will CURRY. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Following a trial in the Superior Court, a jury convicted the defendant, Will Curry, of armed assault with intent to murder, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, attempted assault and battery by means of discharging a firearm, carrying a loaded firearm without a license, threatening to commit a crime, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.2 On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove that he was the shooter. He also contends that the judge abused his discretion in admitting recordings of "jail calls" into evidence. We affirm.
Background. The jury could have found the following facts. In the early morning on May 16, 2015, a former friend of the defendant (hereafter "witness") was sleeping in her apartment at 146 Barnard Street in the Dorchester section of Boston.3 At approximately 4:00 A . M ., the defendant drunkenly entered the witness's apartment, and demanded money from her. After a brief altercation, the defendant went outside. Shortly thereafter, the witness heard the defendant's voice angrily yell "[y]ou pull a knife out on me, I'll kill you," followed by gunshots, whereupon the witness called 911.
On that same early morning, the victim was in his apartment at 144 Barnard Street, which he shared with a friend (hereafter "roommate"). Prior to May 16, 2015, the victim knew the defendant as his neighbor and indicated that the defendant had identified himself by the name "Slave." The defendant previously had provided the victim with two phone numbers to contact him.
Sometime between 4:00 A . M . and 5:00 A . M ., the victim heard knocking at his front door. Upon opening the door, the victim saw the defendant, alone, in a hoodie and red jacket. The defendant had his hand in his pocket and demanded money from the victim. The victim interpreted the defendant's demand to be a reference to $80 that the victim had previously borrowed from him. The victim responded that he had already paid him back, and slammed the door shut. Fearing that the defendant might be armed based on the manner in which he held his hand in his pocket, the victim immediately turned and ran toward his kitchen "to get ... something to protect [him]self." As soon as he turned around, the victim heard gunshots and saw bullets coming through his front door. The victim also overheard the defendant say "[m]otherfucker, I'm going to kill you." After the shooting, the victim observed through an open window the defendant walking away toward his own house.
After hearing the gunshots, the roommate called 911, and police officers responded to the scene. Officers observed two bullet holes in the front door of 144 Barnard Street, as well as other ballistics damage to the walls inside the victim's apartment. While officers recovered two .38 caliber/nine-millimeter projectiles from the scene, no shell casings were found, and no firearm was recovered.4 Officers also spoke to the victim, his roommate, and the witness. The victim provided a description of the defendant, the name by which he knew the defendant, and the two phone numbers he had for the defendant. The witness later appeared at a police station for a formal interview, where she identified an individual in a photo the police showed her as the person she knew as "Junior Curry."5 Officers used the photo the witness selected to compile a photographic array for the victim, from which the victim identified the defendant as the person who shot at him.
After his arrest, the defendant made several phone calls to several phone numbers from the jail where he was held, all of which were recorded. The Commonwealth sought to admit into evidence several of these recordings, eight of which were ultimately admitted. At the close of the Commonwealth's case, the defendant moved for required findings of not guilty as to each charge. The judge denied the motion.
Discussion. 1. Sufficiency of the evidence. The defendant first contends that the judge erred in denying his motions for required findings of not guilty because there was insufficient evidence that he shot at the victim's front door.6 He also contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he possessed a firearm with a barrel length of less than sixteen inches. Both claims are unavailing.
In evaluating whether a motion for required finding of not guilty was properly denied, the reviewing court "must consider whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, notwithstanding the contrary evidence presented by the defendant ... any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Rivera, 425 Mass. 633, 648 (1997). See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677-678 (1979). "Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and inferences drawn from such circumstantial evidence need only be reasonable and possible; [they] need not be necessary or inescapable" (quotation omitted). Commonwealth v. Grandison, 433 Mass. 135, 141 (2001).
The present circumstances do not present a close case because the Commonwealth presented ample evidence to establish that the defendant was the person who fired shots through the victim's front door. The victim testified that the defendant was alone when he arrived at his door between 4 A . M . and 5 A . M ., and that the defendant had his hand in his pocket in a manner that prompted the victim to run to the kitchen to get something to protect himself. The victim also testified that the shooting occurred immediately upon his closing the door. Furthermore, the victim testified that he heard the defendant state "[m]otherfucker, I'm going to kill you" as the shooting occurred, which was corroborated by the witness's testimony that she heard the defendant yell "I'll kill you," followed by gunshots. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bush, 427 Mass. 26, 30 (1998) ().
Further, the victim testified that he observed through an open window the defendant walking away toward his own house immediately after the shooting. The victim also identified the defendant as the person who was at his door in the morning of May 16, 2015, both at trial and in a photo array shown to him by the police. Finally, the witness's testimony corroborated the victim's in myriad respects. Based on all the evidence presented at trial, the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant walked up to the victim's residence with his hand in his pocket in a manner consistent with concealing a weapon, threatened to kill the victim, and shot at his front door. The evidence, viewed "in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth," was more than sufficient to allow the jury to convict the defendant of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.7 Rivera, 425 Mass. at 648. See Bush, 427 Mass. at 30 ().
The evidence at trial also sufficed to prove that the defendant possessed a firearm with a barrel less than sixteen inches in length.8 When considering the sufficiency of the evidence as to a firearm's barrel length, circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to allow the fact finder to infer the length of the barrel even in the absence of the firearm itself. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Manning, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 695, 707 (1998) ().
Here, the Commonwealth presented circumstantial evidence pertaining to the barrel of the gun the defendant used to shoot at the victim's front door. At trial, the victim demonstrated to the jury the way the defendant had his hand in his pocket, and testified to thinking that the defendant had a weapon therein, which in turn prompted the victim to slam the door shut and run to protect himself. No gun or portion thereof was visible to the victim. Immediately after the victim shut the door, shots were fired through his door. Furthermore, the ballistician who examined the bullets recovered from the scene testified that in her experience, she had never examined a .38 caliber or nine-millimeter bullet fired from a firearm with a barrel longer than sixteen inches. From this testimony, the jury could reasonably infer that a rifle or other weapon with a barrel greater than sixteen inches would not be able to fit completely in the defendant's pocket. See Commonwealth v. Evans, 439 Mass. 184, 198, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 923, and 540 U.S. 973 (2003) (); Commonwealth v. Naylor, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 518, 525 (2009) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial