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
22-P-1099
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
LAMAAR MATTHEWS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
Following a bench trial in the Superior Court, the
defendant was convicted of several charges stemming from a home
invasion and armed robbery. On appeal from the judgments of
conviction, he claims the evidence was insufficient. We affirm.
Background. The victims of the defendant's crimes were a
father and son. On January 12, 2021, at approximately 1 A.M.,
the son went to sleep in his bedroom located downstairs in his
family's home. He awoke when he heard his bedroom door creak
open and then close. He turned on the flashlight on his red
iPhone XR1 (phone), opened the door, and yelled "hello. Hello."
The son heard footsteps and saw a "shadow" come toward him. He
closed his door, stood against it, and yelled for help. The
1 He kept the phone either on his person or in his bedroom when at home. He never let other people use his phone. door was pushed open, causing the son to fall. A male intruder
entered the bedroom, took the phone from the son's hand, turned
off the flashlight, and put it in his pocket. In the darkened
room the son felt the man press an object that the son believed
to be a knife into his stomach while the man repeatedly asked,
"where the shit at."
The son heard the father running toward his bedroom. The
intruder got off of the son and left the bedroom. When the
father reached the bottom of the stairs, he encountered a male
intruder who was about the father's height; the man swung a
knife at the father and told him to back up. The father yelled
to his wife to "grab the gun." The intruder fled the house
through the front door. The father then approached the son's
bedroom where he encountered a second male intruder coming out
of the room. The father described the second intruder as dark
skinned and much shorter than the first intruder.2 The second
man also swung a knife, and then he fled the house through the
back door.
Several police officers were dispatched to the home,
arriving at approximately 2:50 A.M. While in route, police were
2 At trial, the father testified that both intruders wore "hoody" sweatshirts. Although he did not remember the color of the sweatshirts, the father acknowledged that he told police officers that the first man wore a gray one, and the second man wore a green one.
2 told that the suspects were two Black men. On this "extremely
cold" night, officers did not see any individuals or cars in the
surrounding area. At approximately 2:55 A.M., police officer
Colby Gallagher saw a man matching the suspect's description
about four tenths of one mile from the victims' home. Gallagher
did not see anyone else or any cars in the area at that time.
He stopped and spoke to the man, who was sweating and breathing
heavily despite the cold temperature. The father was driven to
the location and positively identified the man as the first of
the two men he encountered in his home. The suspect, a
juvenile,3 was arrested.
Police asked the son to use the "Find My iPhone"
application to track his stolen phone's location. The son did
so; the phone appeared to be at a location within one mile from
the home. At 3:47 A.M., police officer Christopher Davis
received a radio transmission about the potential location of
the phone. He proceeded to a "heavily wooded" area where there
were no streetlights or sidewalks. Davis did not see any
pedestrians or cars in the area. He located the phone, with its
3 At booking, the juvenile's height was recorded as five feet ten inches, and his weight as 130 pounds. A search warrant executed on the juvenile's cell phone showed three incoming calls between 3 A.M. and 3:20 A.M., but police were unable to identify the caller. The juvenile received three text messages from a different number during the same time frame. Police were unable to identify the sender.
3 flashlight on, twenty to thirty feet into the woods, in some
thorns and brush. Davis did not touch the phone. The son had
not been in this area, did not know anyone that lived in this
area, never met the defendant, and never left his phone
unattended in a public place or allowed a stranger to use it.
Photographs of the phone and its location were taken by
detective Daniel Barber. Barber could not walk a straight line
from the road to the location of the phone due to thick brush
and thorns. He found the phone, flashlight on, twenty-five to
thirty feet into the woods, at the bottom of a thorn bush that
was undisturbed. Wearing gloves, Barber removed the phone from
the brush, examined it, and noticed what appeared to be
fingerprints. The son identified the phone as the one taken
during the crimes. Subsequent testing revealed five latent
fingerprints on the phone that matched the defendant's
fingerprints.4 The defendant was arrested on April 28, 2021, at
his home in the Dorchester section of Boston, approximately four
months after the crimes.5
4 There were two left index fingerprints, a left little fingerprint, a right middle fingerprint, and a right little fingerprint. The defendant was excluded as the source of one fingerprint. 5 The defendant's home was approximately twenty miles from the
victims' home. At booking, the defendant's height was recorded as five feet ten inches, and his weight as 160 pounds.
4 Discussion. As he did at trial, on appeal, the defendant
does not contest that his fingerprints were on the phone.
Rather, he claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove
that his fingerprints were placed on the phone during the
commission of the crimes. We are not persuaded.
"In determining whether the Commonwealth met its burden to
establish each element of the offense charged, we apply the
familiar Latimore standard. . . . '[The] question is whether,
after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
[Commonwealth], any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'"
Commonwealth v. Colas, 486 Mass. 831, 836 (2021), quoting
Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). Inferences
may be drawn from the evidence, but they "need not be necessary
or inescapable, only reasonable and possible" (quotation and
citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Schoener, 491 Mass. 706, 714
(2023). In a jury-waived trial, it is presumed that the judge
correctly instructed herself on the law. See Commonwealth v.
Qasim Q., 491 Mass. 650, 664 (2023).
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
22-P-1099
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
LAMAAR MATTHEWS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
Following a bench trial in the Superior Court, the
defendant was convicted of several charges stemming from a home
invasion and armed robbery. On appeal from the judgments of
conviction, he claims the evidence was insufficient. We affirm.
Background. The victims of the defendant's crimes were a
father and son. On January 12, 2021, at approximately 1 A.M.,
the son went to sleep in his bedroom located downstairs in his
family's home. He awoke when he heard his bedroom door creak
open and then close. He turned on the flashlight on his red
iPhone XR1 (phone), opened the door, and yelled "hello. Hello."
The son heard footsteps and saw a "shadow" come toward him. He
closed his door, stood against it, and yelled for help. The
1 He kept the phone either on his person or in his bedroom when at home. He never let other people use his phone. door was pushed open, causing the son to fall. A male intruder
entered the bedroom, took the phone from the son's hand, turned
off the flashlight, and put it in his pocket. In the darkened
room the son felt the man press an object that the son believed
to be a knife into his stomach while the man repeatedly asked,
"where the shit at."
The son heard the father running toward his bedroom. The
intruder got off of the son and left the bedroom. When the
father reached the bottom of the stairs, he encountered a male
intruder who was about the father's height; the man swung a
knife at the father and told him to back up. The father yelled
to his wife to "grab the gun." The intruder fled the house
through the front door. The father then approached the son's
bedroom where he encountered a second male intruder coming out
of the room. The father described the second intruder as dark
skinned and much shorter than the first intruder.2 The second
man also swung a knife, and then he fled the house through the
back door.
Several police officers were dispatched to the home,
arriving at approximately 2:50 A.M. While in route, police were
2 At trial, the father testified that both intruders wore "hoody" sweatshirts. Although he did not remember the color of the sweatshirts, the father acknowledged that he told police officers that the first man wore a gray one, and the second man wore a green one.
2 told that the suspects were two Black men. On this "extremely
cold" night, officers did not see any individuals or cars in the
surrounding area. At approximately 2:55 A.M., police officer
Colby Gallagher saw a man matching the suspect's description
about four tenths of one mile from the victims' home. Gallagher
did not see anyone else or any cars in the area at that time.
He stopped and spoke to the man, who was sweating and breathing
heavily despite the cold temperature. The father was driven to
the location and positively identified the man as the first of
the two men he encountered in his home. The suspect, a
juvenile,3 was arrested.
Police asked the son to use the "Find My iPhone"
application to track his stolen phone's location. The son did
so; the phone appeared to be at a location within one mile from
the home. At 3:47 A.M., police officer Christopher Davis
received a radio transmission about the potential location of
the phone. He proceeded to a "heavily wooded" area where there
were no streetlights or sidewalks. Davis did not see any
pedestrians or cars in the area. He located the phone, with its
3 At booking, the juvenile's height was recorded as five feet ten inches, and his weight as 130 pounds. A search warrant executed on the juvenile's cell phone showed three incoming calls between 3 A.M. and 3:20 A.M., but police were unable to identify the caller. The juvenile received three text messages from a different number during the same time frame. Police were unable to identify the sender.
3 flashlight on, twenty to thirty feet into the woods, in some
thorns and brush. Davis did not touch the phone. The son had
not been in this area, did not know anyone that lived in this
area, never met the defendant, and never left his phone
unattended in a public place or allowed a stranger to use it.
Photographs of the phone and its location were taken by
detective Daniel Barber. Barber could not walk a straight line
from the road to the location of the phone due to thick brush
and thorns. He found the phone, flashlight on, twenty-five to
thirty feet into the woods, at the bottom of a thorn bush that
was undisturbed. Wearing gloves, Barber removed the phone from
the brush, examined it, and noticed what appeared to be
fingerprints. The son identified the phone as the one taken
during the crimes. Subsequent testing revealed five latent
fingerprints on the phone that matched the defendant's
fingerprints.4 The defendant was arrested on April 28, 2021, at
his home in the Dorchester section of Boston, approximately four
months after the crimes.5
4 There were two left index fingerprints, a left little fingerprint, a right middle fingerprint, and a right little fingerprint. The defendant was excluded as the source of one fingerprint. 5 The defendant's home was approximately twenty miles from the
victims' home. At booking, the defendant's height was recorded as five feet ten inches, and his weight as 160 pounds.
4 Discussion. As he did at trial, on appeal, the defendant
does not contest that his fingerprints were on the phone.
Rather, he claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove
that his fingerprints were placed on the phone during the
commission of the crimes. We are not persuaded.
"In determining whether the Commonwealth met its burden to
establish each element of the offense charged, we apply the
familiar Latimore standard. . . . '[The] question is whether,
after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
[Commonwealth], any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'"
Commonwealth v. Colas, 486 Mass. 831, 836 (2021), quoting
Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). Inferences
may be drawn from the evidence, but they "need not be necessary
or inescapable, only reasonable and possible" (quotation and
citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Schoener, 491 Mass. 706, 714
(2023). In a jury-waived trial, it is presumed that the judge
correctly instructed herself on the law. See Commonwealth v.
Qasim Q., 491 Mass. 650, 664 (2023).
Here, there was direct evidence that one of the intruders
handled the son's phone during the crimes. The son saw the man
take the phone from his hands, turn off the flashlight, and put
the phone in his pocket. In addition, there was direct and
circumstantial evidence that neither the son nor the father met
5 or knew the defendant, and that the son never left his phone
unattended in a public place or allowed anyone to use it. This
evidence, in combination with the defendant's fingerprints on
the phone, sufficed to support a conclusion that the defendant
was one of the intruders and that his fingerprints were
impressed on the phone when he handled it during the crimes.
See Commonwealth v. Morris, 422 Mass. 254, 257 (1996) ("Where,
for example, there is evidence that a person touched an object,
and it is later proved that the defendant's fingerprints were on
that object, an inference that the defendant was present at the
time of the touching is warranted").
As in this case, when "the only identification evidence is
the defendant's fingerprint at the crime scene, the prosecution
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fingerprint was
placed there during the crime." Morris, 422 Mass. at 257.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, we also conclude that the Commonwealth met its
burden to exclude the hypothesis that the defendant's
fingerprints were impressed under innocent circumstances after
the crimes. Police located the phone within one hour of the
crimes, and within one mile of the victims' home. The phone was
found at the bottom of undisturbed brush with thorns, more than
twenty feet from the side of the road. It was a heavily wooded
area that was difficult to navigate, had no streetlights or
6 sidewalks, and there was little to no foot or vehicle traffic in
that area from the time of the crimes to the discovery of the
phone. Cf. Commonwealth v. Palmer, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 415, 419-
420 (2003) (sufficient circumstantial evidence where truck with
defendant's fingerprints that was used to flee crime scene was
found in area "not readily visible from the street, thereby
making it unlikely someone would see it, approach it, and touch
it during the three hours before it was found"). Contrast
Commonwealth v. French, 476 Mass. 1023, 1025 (2017)
(insufficient circumstantial evidence where windowpane with
defendant's fingerprint, removed during break-in and set in
front of store, "could have been readily accessible to any
passerby for several hours or more"). Here, the circumstantial
evidence, in combination with the son's testimony that he saw
one of the intruders handle his phone during the crimes,
sufficed to reasonably exclude the hypothesis that the
defendant's fingerprint was impressed at a time other than when
the crimes were being committed.
The defendant also argues that the Commonwealth did not
exclude the possibility that the defendant may have touched the
phone before it was found in the woods as a driver or passenger
in a car fleeing the crimes. Because we evaluate the evidence
in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, this argument
fails. See Latimore, 378 Mass. at 676-677. Officers patrolling
7 the area shortly after the crimes did not see any people or cars
in the area where the phone was found until the juvenile was
located walking alone around 2:55 A.M. Although not the only
possible scenario, it is reasonable and possible to conclude
that the defendant was not a getaway driver or car passenger,
and therefore, that the Commonwealth met its burden to
reasonably exclude this hypothesis. Schoener, 491 Mass. at 714.
Finally, to the extent that the defendant argues that the
evidence was insufficient because there were discrepancies in
the father's testimony concerning the height of the defendant,
this was an issue for the fact finder to resolve, and it does
not affect the sufficiency analysis. See Commonwealth v.
Duncan, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 150, 153 n.5 (2008), quoting Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (it is "the responsibility
of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the
testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable
inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts").
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Meade, Blake & Desmond, JJ.6),
Assistant Clerk
Entered: February 8, 2024.
6 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.