Collazo v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Raymond Collazo’s petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The court held that double jeopardy principles did not bar retrial after a mistrial caused by a hung jury because the evidence was legally sufficient to support a murder conviction based on extreme atrocity or cruelty. The evidence sufficiently established both that the infant died from inflicted injuries and that Collazo, rather than the child’s mother, was the perpetrator.

Holdings

1. The Commonwealth presented legally sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the infant died as a result of inflicted injuries.
2. The evidence did not equally support the two inconsistent propositions that Collazo or the infant's mother inflicted the fatal injuries; it provided a clear basis for the jury to find that Collazo was responsible.
3. Because the Commonwealth presented evidence legally sufficient to warrant a conviction of murder in the first degree based on extreme atrocity or cruelty, double jeopardy principles did not bar retrial after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the infant died from inflicted injuries rather than natural causes.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a finding that Collazo, rather than the infant's mother, was the perpetrator.
3. Whether double jeopardy principles barred retrial after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the murder charge.

Disposition

affirmed