NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
25-P-893
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
GREGORY ROBINSON.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
After a trial in the Superior Court, a jury found the
defendant, Gregory Robinson, guilty of five offenses related to
a shooting carried out by the driver of a white sedan.1 The
defendant filed a renewed motion for a required finding of not
guilty, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to identify
him as the shooter. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 25 (b) (2), as
1Assault and battery by means of a firearm, G. L. c. 265, § 15E; attempted assault and battery by means of a firearm, G. L. c. 265, § 15F; unlawfully carrying a firearm, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a); unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (n); and unlawfully possessing ammunition, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h) (1). At trial, the parties stipulated that the defendant lacked a license to possess or carry firearms or ammunition and lacked a valid firearm identification (FID) card. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 23 (a), 471 Mass. 1501 (2015). amended, 420 Mass. 1502 (1995). The judge allowed the motion
and ordered required findings of not guilty on all charges.
Because we agree that the evidence was insufficient to establish
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the shooter, we
affirm.
Background. The jury could have found the following facts.
Around 11:55 P.M. on March 4, 2024, cameras attached to a home
in New Bedford recorded a shooting wherein the driver of a white
sedan stopped the car, got out, and fired several shots at a
dark-colored sedan that subsequently drove past the white sedan.
The shooter was wearing a dark-colored hoodie or sweater. After
the dark-colored car drove off, the shooter got back in the
white sedan and also drove away. Shortly afterward, two men in
a dark-colored Toyota Camry with gunshot holes arrived at the
hospital; one of the men was uninjured and the other had three
gunshot wounds that were not life threatening. Police
interviewed the uninjured man and searched the Camry, but
neither victim testified at trial.
At trial, the Commonwealth introduced, in addition to the
video footage of the shooting, video footage from several
surveillance cameras: from a McDonald's approximately seventeen
blocks from the shooting; and from city traffic cameras in the
area between the McDonald's and the location of the shooting.
The surveillance video footage from McDonald's displays the
2 defendant2 driving a white sedan through the drive-through. In
the surveillance video footage, he is wearing a short sleeved
white T-shirt. The white sedan, a Honda Civic, had a sunroof
and an off-center front license plate with a visible license
plate number.3 The defendant was in the McDonald's drive-through
from approximately 11:43 P.M. to 11:46 P.M.
The surveillance video footage from the city cameras
displays a white sedan a few blocks away from the McDonald's,
driving in the direction of the location of the shooting. At
one point, around 11:52 P.M., the driver of the white sedan is
visibly wearing a white shirt. Beginning around 11:53 P.M., a
dark-colored sedan is visible driving behind the white sedan.
The last surveillance video footage of the white sedan before
the shooting is from around 11:53 P.M., at a location
approximately ten blocks from the shooting. In the video
recordings from the traffic cameras, as well as in the video
footage from the shooting, the white sedan has a sunroof and an
off-center front license plate, but the license plate number is
not visible. No one is in the front passenger's side seat of
2 The defendant identified himself in still photographs taken from the McDonald's surveillance video footage. The defendant's mother and a woman who shares a child with the defendant also identified the defendant from that video footage.
3 The white Civic was registered to the defendant's mother, who testified at trial that the defendant drove the car.
3 the white sedan, and no video footage provides a view of whether
anyone was in the back of the car.
When police arrested the defendant over two weeks later,
the front license plate of the Civic had been removed.
Following negative test results for gunshot residue in the
Civic, the parties stipulated that "no conclusions can be made
as to whether [the car] may have been in the vicinity of a
firearm when it was discharged or may have come into contact
with an item with Gunshot Primer Residue on it."
At the close of the Commonwealth's case, the defendant
moved for a required finding of not guilty. The judge denied
the motion but stated that he would "take another look at it if
they come back with a guilty verdict." The defendant did not
testify or present witnesses. After the jury returned guilty
verdicts for each offense, the defendant filed a renewed motion
for a required finding of not guilty, or in the alternative, for
a new trial. The judge concluded that the evidence was
insufficient to prove that the defendant was the shooter,
allowed the motion for a required finding of not guilty, and
ordered entry of a required finding of not guilty on all
charges. The judge also ruled on the motion for a new trial,
ordering a new trial "if an appellate court reverses [the]
ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence."
4 Discussion. "In reviewing claims of insufficient evidence,
we view the evidence presented at trial, together with
reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth to determine whether any rational jury could
have found the defendant guilty of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Martinez, 487 Mass. 265, 275
(2021). See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677,
(1979). "[C]ircumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and inferences drawn from such
evidence need only be reasonable and possible; [they] need not
be necessary or inescapable" (quotations and citations omitted).
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 475 Mass. 396, 407 (2016). But "it is
not enough for the appellate court to find that there was some
record evidence, however slight, to support each essential
element of the offense; it must find that there was enough
evidence that could have satisfied a rational trier of fact of
each such element beyond a reasonable doubt." Latimore, supra
at 677-678. "Nor may a conviction rest upon the piling of
inference upon inference or conjecture and speculation."
Commonwealth v. Mandile, 403 Mass. 93, 94 (1988).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
25-P-893
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
GREGORY ROBINSON.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
After a trial in the Superior Court, a jury found the
defendant, Gregory Robinson, guilty of five offenses related to
a shooting carried out by the driver of a white sedan.1 The
defendant filed a renewed motion for a required finding of not
guilty, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to identify
him as the shooter. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 25 (b) (2), as
1Assault and battery by means of a firearm, G. L. c. 265, § 15E; attempted assault and battery by means of a firearm, G. L. c. 265, § 15F; unlawfully carrying a firearm, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a); unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (n); and unlawfully possessing ammunition, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h) (1). At trial, the parties stipulated that the defendant lacked a license to possess or carry firearms or ammunition and lacked a valid firearm identification (FID) card. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 23 (a), 471 Mass. 1501 (2015). amended, 420 Mass. 1502 (1995). The judge allowed the motion
and ordered required findings of not guilty on all charges.
Because we agree that the evidence was insufficient to establish
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the shooter, we
affirm.
Background. The jury could have found the following facts.
Around 11:55 P.M. on March 4, 2024, cameras attached to a home
in New Bedford recorded a shooting wherein the driver of a white
sedan stopped the car, got out, and fired several shots at a
dark-colored sedan that subsequently drove past the white sedan.
The shooter was wearing a dark-colored hoodie or sweater. After
the dark-colored car drove off, the shooter got back in the
white sedan and also drove away. Shortly afterward, two men in
a dark-colored Toyota Camry with gunshot holes arrived at the
hospital; one of the men was uninjured and the other had three
gunshot wounds that were not life threatening. Police
interviewed the uninjured man and searched the Camry, but
neither victim testified at trial.
At trial, the Commonwealth introduced, in addition to the
video footage of the shooting, video footage from several
surveillance cameras: from a McDonald's approximately seventeen
blocks from the shooting; and from city traffic cameras in the
area between the McDonald's and the location of the shooting.
The surveillance video footage from McDonald's displays the
2 defendant2 driving a white sedan through the drive-through. In
the surveillance video footage, he is wearing a short sleeved
white T-shirt. The white sedan, a Honda Civic, had a sunroof
and an off-center front license plate with a visible license
plate number.3 The defendant was in the McDonald's drive-through
from approximately 11:43 P.M. to 11:46 P.M.
The surveillance video footage from the city cameras
displays a white sedan a few blocks away from the McDonald's,
driving in the direction of the location of the shooting. At
one point, around 11:52 P.M., the driver of the white sedan is
visibly wearing a white shirt. Beginning around 11:53 P.M., a
dark-colored sedan is visible driving behind the white sedan.
The last surveillance video footage of the white sedan before
the shooting is from around 11:53 P.M., at a location
approximately ten blocks from the shooting. In the video
recordings from the traffic cameras, as well as in the video
footage from the shooting, the white sedan has a sunroof and an
off-center front license plate, but the license plate number is
not visible. No one is in the front passenger's side seat of
2 The defendant identified himself in still photographs taken from the McDonald's surveillance video footage. The defendant's mother and a woman who shares a child with the defendant also identified the defendant from that video footage.
3 The white Civic was registered to the defendant's mother, who testified at trial that the defendant drove the car.
3 the white sedan, and no video footage provides a view of whether
anyone was in the back of the car.
When police arrested the defendant over two weeks later,
the front license plate of the Civic had been removed.
Following negative test results for gunshot residue in the
Civic, the parties stipulated that "no conclusions can be made
as to whether [the car] may have been in the vicinity of a
firearm when it was discharged or may have come into contact
with an item with Gunshot Primer Residue on it."
At the close of the Commonwealth's case, the defendant
moved for a required finding of not guilty. The judge denied
the motion but stated that he would "take another look at it if
they come back with a guilty verdict." The defendant did not
testify or present witnesses. After the jury returned guilty
verdicts for each offense, the defendant filed a renewed motion
for a required finding of not guilty, or in the alternative, for
a new trial. The judge concluded that the evidence was
insufficient to prove that the defendant was the shooter,
allowed the motion for a required finding of not guilty, and
ordered entry of a required finding of not guilty on all
charges. The judge also ruled on the motion for a new trial,
ordering a new trial "if an appellate court reverses [the]
ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence."
4 Discussion. "In reviewing claims of insufficient evidence,
we view the evidence presented at trial, together with
reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth to determine whether any rational jury could
have found the defendant guilty of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Martinez, 487 Mass. 265, 275
(2021). See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677,
(1979). "[C]ircumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and inferences drawn from such
evidence need only be reasonable and possible; [they] need not
be necessary or inescapable" (quotations and citations omitted).
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 475 Mass. 396, 407 (2016). But "it is
not enough for the appellate court to find that there was some
record evidence, however slight, to support each essential
element of the offense; it must find that there was enough
evidence that could have satisfied a rational trier of fact of
each such element beyond a reasonable doubt." Latimore, supra
at 677-678. "Nor may a conviction rest upon the piling of
inference upon inference or conjecture and speculation."
Commonwealth v. Mandile, 403 Mass. 93, 94 (1988).
To identify the defendant as the shooter in this case, the
evidence must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the
white sedan at the shooting was the same car the defendant was
driving at the McDonald's and (2) the defendant was the driver
5 of that car at the time of the shooting. At trial, the
Commonwealth presented several pieces of evidence -- namely, the
surveillance video footage -- that the white sedan driven by the
defendant was the same white sedan at the shooting. However,
despite the inference that the car was the same, the
Commonwealth presented inadequate evidence that the defendant
was the shooter.
At trial, the Commonwealth emphasized that the defendant
was driving less than ten minutes before the shooting and that
"the person that does the shooting gets out of the driver's seat
of that white car." All other evidence presented related to the
inference that the car was the same, rather than supporting the
additional inference that the driver was the same. The
Commonwealth also noted that the front license plate of the
Civic had been removed by the time of the defendant's arrest.
But even if the defendant's removal of the front license plate
serves as evidence of consciousness of guilt, such evidence is
not a sufficient basis to establish guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. See Gonzalez, 475 Mass. at 408-409. Additionally, the
jury could not have identified the shooter as the defendant
based on any distinctive physical characteristics or even based
on the clothing that the shooter wore -- the driver of the white
sedan at the time of the shooting was wearing a dark sweatshirt,
whereas the defendant was wearing a white T-shirt at McDonald's.
6 Cf. Commonwealth v. Davis, 487 Mass. 448, 463 (2021), S.C., 491
Mass. 1011 (2023) (combined evidence of location and similar
appearance was sufficient to identify defendant). The
Commonwealth's "piling of inference upon inference," Gonzalez,
supra at 412, quoting Mandile, 403 Mass. at 94, is insufficient
to sustain the defendant's conviction in this case. See
Commonwealth v. Swafford, 441 Mass. 329, 342-343 (2004).
The Commonwealth points to Baxter v. Commonwealth, 489
Mass. 504, 504, 509 (2022), which involved sufficient evidence
that a defendant, Dario Baxter, was the driver of a distinctive
car seen near a shooting. Id. at 507-509. That case is
distinguishable: because Baxter involved accomplice liability,
it was not necessary for the Commonwealth to prove that Baxter
was the shooter. See id. at 508. Further, evidence in that
case included witness identifications of the car, video footage
displaying a person resembling Baxter driving the car to the
location of the shooting with a person matching the description
of the shooter in the front passenger's side seat, and police
finding Baxter driving the car with a codefendant in the front
passenger's side seat later the same day as the shooting. Id.
at 507-509. The present case lacks the corroborating evidence
of identification present in Baxter. See id. at 508-509.
For the same reason, the Commonwealth's arguments about
inferences related to the car -- that the jury were competent to
7 identify the car without expert testimony and that it is
reasonable to infer the dark-colored sedan following the white
sedan before the shooting was the victims' Camry -- are
unavailing. The identification of the car relates only to the
inference that the white sedan at McDonald's was the same as the
one at the shooting. As we have noted, that inference is
insufficient in the absence of other evidence to identify the
defendant as the shooter. See Gonzalez, 475 Mass. at 412-413.
As in Gonzalez, although "the jury could have concluded, on
this evidence, . . . that it was more likely than not that [the
defendant] was the driver, the evidence was insufficient to
allow a jury to draw this conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt."
Gonzalez, 475 Mass. at 397. The judge properly granted the
defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty as to
each of the defendant's charges in this case.4 The order
allowing the defendant's renewed motion for a required finding
4 Given our conclusion, we need not address the propriety of the judge's conditional allowance of a new trial in the event we had found the evidence to be sufficient.
8 of not guilty and ordering the entry of a finding of not guilty
as to all charges is affirmed.
So ordered.
By the Court (Massing, Ditkoff & Hand, JJ.5),
Clerk
Entered: June 11, 2026.
5 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.