Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a joint venturer may be liable for a coventurer’s escape-related crimes only if the Commonwealth proves the defendant knowingly participated in and intended each crime. The court distinguished this rule from felony-murder liability, under which participation in the underlying felony may substitute for the intent otherwise required for murder. The court reversed the dismissal of the challenged indictments and permitted the Commonwealth to proceed on all three first-degree murder theories.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the grand-jury evidence established probable cause to indict Hanright as a joint venturer for assault, assault and battery, and firearm offenses committed by Cinelli during the escape from the armed robbery.
- Whether the evidence established probable cause to proceed against Hanright for Maguire's murder on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, in addition to felony-murder.
- Whether joint-venture liability for escape-related crimes requires proof that the defendant participated in and shared the requisite intent for each crime, rather than liability based solely on the natural and probable consequences of the underlying robbery.
Holdings
- A defendant may be held liable as a joint venturer for offenses committed by a coventurer during escape from an underlying crime only if the Commonwealth proves that the defendant knowingly participated in each charged offense and shared the requisite intent for that offense. The natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine does not by itself establish liability for those offenses.
- The grand-jury evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause supporting the challenged assault, assault-and-battery, and firearm indictments against Hanright as a joint venturer.
- The evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause for Hanright's prosecution as a joint venturer in Maguire's first-degree murder on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, not merely felony-murder.
- For joint-venture felony-murder based on armed robbery, the defendant's shared intent to commit the underlying felony substitutes for the malice required for murder; the Commonwealth need not prove that the defendant specifically intended the harm to Maguire.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the defendant may be liable for Cinelli’s escape-related crimes, but only if the Commonwealth proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in, and intended, such crimes.” (466 Mass. at 307)
“Thus, we do not dispense with the intent requirement for joint venture liability for each of a coventurer’s escape-related crimes.” (466 Mass. at 310)
“Probable cause to sustain an indictment is a decidedly low standard.” (466 Mass. at 311)
Factual background
Domenic Cinelli planned and carried out an armed robbery of a department-store jewelry counter while Hanright accompanied him. Before the robbery, Hanright and Cinelli drove possible escape routes, and Hanright knew Cinelli possessed a gun and planned to use it in the robbery. During Cinelli's escape, he engaged police officers and another person in a chase and gunfight, killing Officer John Maguire; Hanright left the scene after discarding his ski mask and was arrested before his planned ride arrived.
Procedural history
A grand jury returned twenty-two indictments against Hanright, including first-degree murder and masked armed robbery charges. The motion judge dismissed several indictments for escape-related offenses and dismissed the deliberate-premeditation and extreme-atrocity-or-cruelty theories of the murder charge, concluding that the evidence did not show Hanright participated in or intended the post-robbery events. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed those portions of the order and permitted the Commonwealth to proceed at trial.
Remand instructions
The Commonwealth may proceed at trial on the challenged indictments and on all three theories of first-degree murder. The trial judge should give individualized instructions on each escape-related offense and on aiding or abetting, instruct on the elements of murder and aiding or abetting for the non-felony-murder theories, may instruct on contingent or conditional intent, and must make clear that intent to commit the underlying armed robbery alone is insufficient for the challenged offenses. For felony-murder, the judge should instruct that shared intent to commit the underlying armed robbery substitutes for malice.