Conkey v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the denial of Craig Conkey’s petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The court held that his acquittal of armed robbery did not, under collateral estoppel or double jeopardy principles, bar retrial on armed burglary, armed assault in a dwelling, or murder in the first degree based on the remaining viable theories. The court also noted that the Commonwealth could not rely on armed robbery as the predicate felony in the subsequent trial.

Holdings

1. The acquittal of armed robbery did not bar retrial on the armed-burglary and armed-assault-in-a-dwelling charges because the verdict did not establish which element of armed robbery the jury found unproven, and actual commission of the intended felony is not an element of either offense.
2. The armed-robbery acquittal did not bar retrial for first-degree murder under felony-murder, extreme-atrocity-or-cruelty, or deliberate-premeditation theories.
3. The single justice did not abuse his discretion or commit a clear error of law in denying Conkey's petition for extraordinary relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the acquittal of armed robbery established, for collateral-estoppel or double-jeopardy purposes, that Conkey did not commit larceny and therefore barred retrial for armed burglary and armed assault in a dwelling.
2. Whether the armed-robbery acquittal barred retrial for first-degree murder under felony-murder, extreme-atrocity-or-cruelty, or deliberate-premeditation theories.
3. Whether the county court single justice abused his discretion or committed clear legal error by denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Disposition

affirmed