Commonwealth v. Bolden

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that Massachusetts General Laws chapter 266, section 14 permits only one aggravated-burglary conviction per dwelling, making the two Agawam convictions duplicative. The court vacated one Agawam conviction and dismissed the corresponding indictment. It affirmed the conviction on the amended Springfield indictment, concluding that changing the assault victim's name was a permissible amendment that did not violate article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights or prejudice the defendant.

Holdings

1. General Laws c. 266, § 14, permits only one aggravated-burglary conviction per dwelling. Once a dwelling has been broken into, subsequent breaks occurring within the dwelling and reasonably close in time and purpose are a continuation of the same offense, and multiple assaults on inhabitants cannot be aggregated into separate units of prosecution under § 14.
2. The two Agawam convictions were duplicative because they arose from a single aggravated burglary of one dwelling, even though the defendant assaulted two different inhabitants and committed successive breaks inside the dwelling. One conviction had to be vacated, the verdict set aside, and the indictment dismissed.
3. The amendment changing the assault victim's name from Carmella Goodrow to Sandra Goodrow did not violate art. 12 because the name of the assault victim was not an essential element of the § 14 offense where both indictments were based on the same burglary. The amendment changed form rather than substance.
4. Waiver and direct-estoppel principles did not bar relief. Duplicative convictions pose a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice even when the sentences are concurrent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether two aggravated-burglary convictions under G. L. c. 266, § 14, based on multiple assaults and successive breaks within the same dwelling, were duplicative under double-jeopardy principles.
2. Whether the amendment of the Springfield indictment to change the name of the assault victim violated art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights or Mass. R. Crim. P. 4(d).
3. Whether procedural waiver or direct estoppel barred the defendant from seeking postconviction relief from the duplicative conviction.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded