Commonwealth v. St. Hilaire

• Decision Date: 02 January 2015
• Docket Number: SJC–11566.
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. David ST. HILAIRE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

470 Mass. 338
21 N.E.3d 968

COMMONWEALTH
v.
David ST. HILAIRE.

SJC–11566.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued Sept. 4, 2014.
Decided Jan. 2, 2015.

21 N.E.3d 970

Steven J. Rappaport, Boston, for the defendant.

Melissa Weisgold Johnsen, Assistant District Attorney (David Solet, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth.

Present: GANTS, C.J., SPINA, CORDY, BOTSFORD, DUFFLY, LENK, & HINES, JJ.

Opinion

HINES, J.

Following a jury-waived trial, a Superior Court judge found the defendant guilty of larceny from a person sixty years of age or older in violation of G.L. c. 266, § 30(5).¹ The charges arose from a real estate transaction in which Erika Magill, the victim, sold her property to the defendant. At the time of the transaction, the victim was an eighty-six year old widowed nursing home resident. The defendant's appeal claiming error in the judge's denial of his motion for a required finding of not guilty was entered in the Appeals Court, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion to consider whether, as the judge ruled, the crime of larceny may

21 N.E.3d 971

be proved by evidence that (1) the victim lacked the mental capacity to understand the transaction she entered into with the defendant; and (2) the defendant knew or should have known that she lacked such capacity. We conclude that the “unlawful taking” element of the crime of larceny by theft may be proved by evidence that the victim lacked the mental capacity to consent to a taking of her property, but that the “specific intent to steal” element requires proof that the defendant knew that the victim lacked capacity to give such consent. Because the judge may have applied an erroneous legal standard for proof of the specific intent to steal, we vacate the conviction and remand for a new trial.²

Background. Taken in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676–677, 393 N.E.2d 370 (1979), the judge could have found the following facts. The victim lived alone in her home in Lowell. She and her late husband owned the home, and she lived there for more than fifty years. The home was her only asset. The defendant, a building inspector in Lowell, was one of the victim's neighbors. Shortly after moving in, the defendant and the victim's husband developed a tense relationship due to disputes over the boundaries of

their respective properties. After the victim's husband died, the defendant inquired about buying the victim's home. She refused to sell to him and told several people, including her attorney, that she did not want to sell her property to the defendant. She expressed her resolve not to sell to the defendant in colorful language. She told one person, “That son of a bitch wants my house, and he's not getting it.” She said to another that there was “no way in hell” she would sell to the defendant and that her late husband would “flip over in his grave” if she did.

In July, 2001, the victim's attorney prepared the victim's will naming her best friend as the sole beneficiary of her property, including her home. The victim had no family. When the friend's health began to deteriorate in 2007, the friend's daughter, Lisa Miele, began to visit with and provide help to the victim. In 2007, the victim substituted Miele as her health care proxy, a duty previously undertaken by Miele's mother, who died in 2009.

On July 13, 2010, the victim broke her hip and was taken to a hospital where she was scheduled to undergo surgery the following day. The victim was anxious about the surgery and summoned her attorney the afternoon before the surgery to discuss her will. In the conversation with her attorney, the victim explained that her best friend had died and that she wanted the friend's daughter to receive whatever her friend would have received under the prior will. The attorney attended to the matter that day and returned to the hospital later that night, before the surgery, with the revised will. As instructed by the victim, the attorney revised the will to bequeath the victim's house and property to Miele. The victim reviewed the revised will and signed it in the presence of two witnesses and a notary brought to the hospital by the attorney.

The next day the victim underwent surgery, and on July 17, 2010, she was transferred to a nursing home for rehabilitation. On admission to the nursing home, a medical staff member administered a “mini mental status exam” that showed mild cognitive deficits and concluded that the victim

21 N.E.3d 972

was not competent to sign any further paperwork. A supervisor informed Miele that as the victim's health care proxy, she would have to sign documents on the victim's behalf.

After a few days at the nursing home, the victim's condition deteriorated. She suffered an infection that caused a great deal of pain and discomfort. The medical staff administered antibiotics, antidepressants, and oxycodone, which, according to one of the treating nurses, could cause confusion and sedation. After receiving

the medication, the victim was at times incoherent and incapable of expressing herself. The victim's condition was apparent to Miele, who visited the victim every day after the surgery. The defendant also visited the victim, and during one visit when both Miele and the defendant were present, the defendant questioned Miele about her constant attention to the victim.

During the victim's stay at the nursing home, the staff became aware that the defendant had asked the victim to sign documents, the nature and contents of which were unknown to the victim. On July 21, 2010, Miele relayed this information to the victim's attorney. The victim's roommate also was aware of the defendant's efforts to get the victim to sign unspecified documents. The victim's roommate promised to telephone Miele if the defendant returned with documents for the victim to sign.

On July 26, 2010, Miele visited the victim as usual but the victim was barely aware of Miele's presence. Miele left with a promise to return after dinner. Shortly thereafter, the defendant arrived at the victim's bedside with a notary public and one other person. The victim's roommate, who was present when the defendant arrived, saw the defendant hand a document to the victim. Without explaining the contents, the defendant asked the victim to sign the document. The victim's roommate yelled to the victim not to sign it, but she did. The victim's roommate immediately telephoned Miele. When Miele arrived to investigate what had happened, the victim told Miele that she did not know what she had signed. The defendant did not provide a copy of the document to the victim.

A few days later, the victim was taken to the hospital, where she fell into a coma. She died on August 12, 2010. After the victim's death, Miele learned that the victim had signed a quitclaim deed conveying her property to the defendant.

Subsequently, Detective Thomas Hultgren of the Lowell police department contacted the defendant and requested an interview regarding the circumstances of the transfer of the victim's property to the defendant. The defendant agreed to an interview and met with Detective Hultgren. During that interview, the defendant claimed that, prior to the victim's hospitalization for her hip injury, the victim and he had reached an oral agreement for the sale of her property. The terms of the alleged agreement were that the defendant would pay the victim $100,000, pay off the municipal liens, and grant the victim a life estate in the property. The victim would take back two mortgages in the amount of $50,000

and $42,000. These mortgages would be discharged after fifteen years or on the victim's death, whichever occurred first. The defendant showed Detective Hultgren a copy of the notarized quitclaim deed the victim signed on July 26, copies of two notarized mortgages that the victim did not sign, and a document entitled “Life Estate,” which the victim also did not sign. Even though the defendant was aware that the victim was represented by an attorney and that Miele was her caretaker, he never told either of them about the agreement for the sale of

21 N.E.3d 973

the victim's property. The defendant did not seek the assistance of an attorney, opting to prepare all of the documents himself. As to the victim's condition on the date of the transaction, the defendant claimed that she “looked good” and “knew what was going on” when he asked her to sign the deed. He also told Detective Hultgren that the victim “looked better on July 26 than [she had] in months.”

The defendant recorded only the $50,000 mortgage, claiming that he did so as a protective measure so that the nursing home would be unable to get a lien on the victim's house in the event that she could not pay her bills. He paid no money to the victim. Notwithstanding the asserted agreement to grant the victim a life estate in the property, the defendant immediately changed the locks on the property, denying access to Miele and the victim's attorney.

Discussion. At the close of the Commonwealth's evidence and again at the close of all the...