NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 

revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 

volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical 

error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 

Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 

Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-

1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-12631

COMMONWEALTH vs. DANIEL TAVARES.

Bristol. January 6, 2020. - May 6, 2020.

Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & 

Kafker, JJ.

Homicide. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Request for jury 

instructions, Motion for a required finding.

Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court 

Department on March 28, 2013.

The case was tried before Gary A. Nickerson, J.

Theodore F. Riordan (Deborah Bates Riordan also present) 

for the defendant.

Mary E. Lee, Assistant District Attorney, for the 

Commonwealth.

LOWY, J. In December 2015, a jury convicted the defendant, 

Daniel Tavares, of murder in the first degree on theories of 

deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, for 

the 1988 stabbing death of Gayle Botelho. The judge sentenced 
2

the defendant to life in prison.1 On appeal, the defendant seeks 

reversal of his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred 

by denying (1) his requests for a jury instruction pursuant to

Commonwealth v. Croft, 345 Mass. 143, 145 (1962); and (2) his 

motions for a required finding of not guilty because the evidence 

equally supported two inconsistent propositions, as prohibited 

by Croft. The defendant also requests that we exercise our 

power pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce his conviction 

to manslaughter. Finding neither reversible error nor reason to 

exercise our authority under § 33E, we affirm.

Background. We recite the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth, reserving certain details for 

later discussion. See Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 456 Mass. 578, 

579 (2010). The victim went missing on or about October 27, 

1988. At the time of her disappearance, the victim lived on 

Prospect Street in Fall River with her boyfriend, Carlos 

DaPonte, and his brother, Gil DaPonte.2 The defendant lived 

across the street with his mother, and as relevant here, his 

mother's friend, Richard Pires. Neither the defendant nor 

 

1 The judge ordered that the defendant serve his sentence 

from and after the sentence imposed by the State of Washington

in or around 2007, as discussed infra.

2 Because they share a last name, we refer to Carlos and Gil

individually by their first names and collectively as the 

DaPontes.
3

anybody else was arrested in connection with the victim's 

disappearance, until the defendant was charged in 2012.

1. The defendant's first version of events. In 1991, the 

defendant killed his mother and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. 

He was sentenced to from seventeen to twenty years in State 

prison. In September 2000, while incarcerated, the defendant 

wrote to a Bristol County assistant district attorney, claiming 

to know the location of a murder victim's body, which he would 

disclose, along with other relevant information, in exchange for 

a reduced sentence.3 During a series of interviews that took 

place over the subsequent months, the defendant told Detective 

John McDonald the following details about the night the victim 

was murdered: the victim, Carlos, Gil, and their friend, 

Raymond Paiva, were all at the defendant's house with the 

defendant. The defendant gave Carlos some cocaine to sell and 

Carlos left. The defendant then stepped outside to speak to his 

girlfriend, Michelle Cardoza, for about ten to fifteen minutes. 

When the defendant returned to his bedroom, he saw Gil holding a 

knife and the victim on the floor with stab wounds to her back. 

The defendant further stated that he was not present during the 

stabbing.

 

3 The defendant was not paroled, nor was his sentence 

reduced in exchange for any information given to police. The 

defendant also told police that he had contacted them because he 

had found God and wanted to clear his conscience.
4

When the defendant asked what had happened, Gil confessed 

to stabbing the victim, and the defendant announced he was going 

to call for help. Gil then pulled out a handgun, put it to the 

defendant's head, and fired a round, which grazed the 

defendant's forehead. The defendant then said he had to leave

to pick up Cardoza, and he instructed Gil and Paiva to remove 

the victim's body. When the defendant returned approximately 

twenty minutes later, he saw Gil and Paiva carrying the victim's 

body, wrapped in a blanket, down the stairs and into the back

yard.4 Later, Gil and Paiva pointed to an area of the back yard 

and told the defendant that that was where they had buried the 

victim's body. The defendant had been clearing that area for a 

tomato garden, and he suspected that that was where Gil and 

Paiva buried the body.5

2. The initial investigation. After two interviews with 

the defendant, in October 2000, the police went to the 

defendant's former house on June Street. In the defendant's 

bedroom, they found a bloodstained section of floor. In the 

back yard, the police recovered a human skeleton and positively 

 

4 The defendant also told police that because Cardoza saw 

Gil and Paiva carrying the victim, the defendant explained to 

her that the victim had been hurt.

5 After this meeting with the defendant, Detective McDonald

met with Cardoza, who confirmed the defendant's version of 

events.
5

identified the remains as those of the victim. The autopsy 

concluded that the cause of death was homicidal violence 

including stabbing to the victim's back.

Shortly thereafter, Lori Moniz, the defendant's former 

girlfriend, saw a news report that a body had been discovered in 

the defendant's back yard. She contacted the police. At a 

subsequent meeting, she reported that, on an evening in late 

October 1988, the defendant had telephoned and told her to come 

to his house because he wanted to show her something. When 

Moniz arrived, the defendant answered the door, appearing 

nervous and excited. Moniz followed the defendant upstairs to 

his bedroom and, as she approached, she saw the defendant on his 

hands and knees scrubbing what appeared to be a large pool of 

blood from the rug. Upon seeing this, Moniz rushed down the 

stairs to leave. The defendant ran after her, explaining that 

the blood was fake and a joke for Halloween.

3. The defendant's second version of events. In 2002, the 

defendant changed his story: The defendant stated that he 

witnessed Gil stab and murder the victim and that Cardoza was 

not there that night. In 2002, Cardoza also told Detective 

McDonald that, at the defendant's request, she had lied about 

being with the defendant on the night of the murder. The 

Commonwealth did not charge the defendant with the victim's 

murder at this point.
6

4. Further investigation. In 2007, the defendant 

completed his sentence for his mother's homicide, and within 

days of his release from prison, he moved to the State of 

Washington. Shortly thereafter, the defendant killed two 

people. While incarcerated in Washington, the defendant learned 

of a book that discussed the victim's murder, including the 

defendant's cooperation with the police. In 2012, another 

individual incarcerated in the same Washington prison as the 

defendant told the Fall River police department that he had 

discovered an open letter, written on the cover of a book in the 

prison library, in which the author, later confirmed to be the 

defendant, refuted the notion that the defendant had cooperated 

with police and, instead, asserted that he was the only suspect 

in the victim's murder case, not a "rat."

5. The defendant's 2012 confession. In November 2012, 

Detective McDonald traveled to Washington to meet with the 

defendant, at which point, the defendant changed his story 

again. The defendant stated that he alone murdered the victim

(2012 confession). In this version, the defendant was angry 

with the victim, the DaPontes, and Paiva for stealing cocaine

from him, and he planned to kill all of them in retaliation for 

the theft. On the day of the murder, he walked across the 

street to the victim's house, and the victim answered the door. 

The defendant asked if Carlos was home, but he was not. The 
7

defendant told the victim that he knew all four of them had 

stolen from him and that he wanted them to start selling cocaine 

for him to repay their debt. The defendant then invited the 

victim across the street to retrieve some cocaine from his 

house. Upon entering his bedroom, the defendant laid out a line 

of cocaine for the victim. While the victim bent over to ingest

the line, the defendant took a handgun and tried to shoot her,

but the slide on the gun jammed. The defendant then reached for 

a knife that was on his bureau and stabbed the victim seven or 

eight times. The victim fell, and her blood soaked the floor. 

The defendant then moved the victim's body to the back yard, 

removed the victim's clothes, and buried the victim's body, face 

down, in the back yard. The defendant told Detective McDonald

that he would not have confessed if not for the book that had 

been written, because he refused to be known as a "rat."6

In February 2013, the defendant confessed three more times

in writing to (1) his former roommate, Richard Pires;

 

6 The defendant also said that he accused Gil and Paiva of 

the murder because they benefited from the stolen cocaine, so by 

pinning it on them, he could kill two birds with one stone.
8

(2) Detective McDonald;7 and (3) his former false alibi witness,8

Cardoza.

A grand jury indicted the defendant for the victim's murder 

in 2013, and the jury trial began on November 16, 2015. At

trial, the defendant argued that he gave a false confession to 

avoid being labeled a "rat" in prison. He called an expert 

witness who testified to the dangers of being considered a "rat"

within the prison system. The jury convicted the defendant.

Discussion. 1. Jury instruction. On appeal, the 

defendant argues the judge erred in denying the defendant's 

requests for a jury instruction pursuant to Croft, 345 Mass. at

145.9 Because the defendant preserved this issue at trial, we 

 

7 The defendant had kept in contact with Pires while 

incarcerated in Massachusetts and in Washington. Pires 

testified that the defendant wrote to him on a somewhat regular 

basis.

The defendant told Pires that he had to "take them out" 

because "Carlos and his girl stole something from [him] that was 

not [his]" and that he "did [the crime] alone." The defendant 

also said that he confessed to Lori Moniz and a woman who lived 

across the street. In the letter to Detective McDonald, the 

defendant wrote, "I acted alone and that's that." The defendant 

reiterated to both of them that he came clean because the book 

that had been written about the murder made him look like a 

"rat."

8 Also in February 2013, the defendant wrote Cardoza, 

admitting that he had asked her to lie for him and told her not 

to lie for him anymore.

9 The defendant's requested jury instruction was modified 

from the language in Croft. The requested instruction stated, 

"Where the evidence tends equally to sustain either of two 
9

review for prejudicial error. See Commonwealth v. Cruz, 445 

Mass. 589, 591 (2005).

We have long upheld the principle articulated in Croft that 

"[w]hen the evidence tends equally to sustain either of two 

inconsistent propositions, neither of them can be said to have 

been established by legitimate proof." Croft, 345 Mass. at 145, 

quoting Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 305 Mass. 393, 400 (1940). See 

Commonwealth v. Kelly, 470 Mass. 682, 693-694 (2015). Our 

decision in Croft does not provide for a jury instruction, and 

we have never interpreted it as such.10 Indeed, we previously 

held that "a reference to the consequences of an even balance in 

the evidence preferably should not be included in a charge on 

reasonable doubt," Commonwealth v. Hunt, 462 Mass. 807, 825-826

(2012), quoting Commonwealth v. Beverly, 389 Mass. 866, 872-873 

(1983), because such an instruction may lead the jury to 

improperly infer that if the balance is weighted even slightly 

 

inconsistent propositions, neither of them can be said to have 

established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In such a case, 

the evidence is insufficient to sustain the burden of proof 

imposed upon the Commonwealth." See Croft, 345 Mass. at 145.

10 Even the cases to which the defendant cites in his brief 

do not mention Croft in the context of a jury instruction. 

Rather, they discuss the circumstances in which the trial judge 

should have granted the defendant's motion for a required 

finding of not guilty. See Commonwealth v. Rivera, 460 Mass. 

139, 144 (2011) (judge erred in denying defendant's motion for 

required finding of not guilty); Croft, 345 Mass. at 145 (same). 

See Rodriguez, 456 Mass. at 582-583 (insufficient evidence to 

support convictions).
10

in favor of the defendant's guilt, the jury would be required to 

find the defendant guilty, see Commonwealth v. Saladin, 73 Mass. 

App. Ct. 416, 419 (2008).

Instead, the principle articulated in Croft provides a 

standard for judges to apply when considering a motion for a 

required finding of not guilty and for appellate courts to apply 

when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence. There was no 

error.

3. Required finding of not guilty under Croft. The 

defendant also argues that the judge erred in denying his 

motions for a required finding of not guilty both at the close 

of the Commonwealth's case and at the close of all of the 

evidence. We review to determine "whether, after viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements

of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Cole, 

473 Mass. 317, 334 (2015), overruled on another ground, 

Commonwealth v. Wardsworth, 482 Mass. 454(2019), quoting 

Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979).

Citing Croft, the defendant argues that because the 

Commonwealth based its entire case on the defendant's 2012 

confession, the whole of the evidence supports two inconsistent 

propositions: (1) the 2012 confession was truthful and he 

murdered the victim or (2) the 2012 confession was untruthful 
11

and was an effort to avoid being labeled a "rat" while serving 

sentences in prison. The defendant further argues that because 

the evidence equally supports both propositions, the judge erred 

in denying the defendant's motions for a required finding of not 

guilty. See Croft, 345 Mass. at 145. The defendant is correct 

that Croft requires a judge to grant a defendant's motion for a 

required finding of not guilty when "the evidence tends equally 

to sustain either of two inconsistent propositions" (citation 

omitted). Id. That is not this case.

This principle applies only in circumstances in which, even 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, "choosing among the possible inferences from the 

evidence presented," would require a jury "to employ 

conjecture." Id. at 145 (evidence equally supported inference 

that defendant possessed heroin with intent to sell it and 

inference that defendant possessed heroin until he was certain

he had defeated his habit). See Rodriguez, 456 Mass. at 582-583 

(evidence equally supported inconsistent inferences that buyer 

either obtained cocaine from third person or from defendant);

Commonwealth v. Eramo, 377 Mass. 912, 913 (1979) (evidence 

equally supported inconsistent inferences that defendant either 

issued prescription due to his independent medical judgment or 

pursuant to request without legitimate medical purpose). 

However, "it is for the jury to determine where the truth lies, 
12

for the weight and credibility of the evidence is wholly within 

their province." Cole, 473 Mass. at 334, quoting Commonwealth

v. Lao, 443 Mass. 770, 779 (2005), S.C., 450 Mass. 215 (2007)

and 460 Mass. 12 (2011). See Commonwealth v. Merry, 453 Mass. 

653, 662 (2009) (jury not required to believe testimony of 

defendant's expert); Commonwealth v. Clifford, 374 Mass. 293, 

297 (1978) (jury not required to disbelieve witnesses' testimony

placing defendant at scene of crime).

The likelihood of the defendant's 2012 confession being 

truthful or being untruthful are not in equipoise. The weight 

of the Commonwealth's evidence in this case, moreover, was 

overwhelming and, contrary to the defendant's arguments,

included much more than just the defendant's 2012 confession to 

Detective McDonald. See Commonwealth v. Weaver, 474 Mass. 787, 

791 (2016), aff'd 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017), citing Commonwealth v. 

Forde, 392 Mass. 453, 458 (1984). The victim's body was buried 

in the defendant's back yard. The police found dried blood in 

the defendant's bedroom. It was reasonable for the jury to 

conclude that, just hours after the murder, the defendant's 

former girlfriend saw the defendant cleaning up a pool of blood 

in the very same bedroom. One of the defendant's then roommates 

observed blood on the defendant's shirt in the washing machine, 

a pool of blood on the basement floor, and a pitchfork and 

shovel also in the basement near the door leading to the back
13

yard. The roommate had never seen the pitchfork and shovel in 

that location before. In addition to the 2012 confession to 

police, the defendant separately confessed to Pires and to 

Cardoza,11 and the Commonwealth put forth ample evidence 

corroborating the defendant's confessions.12 The jury were free, 

but not required, to believe that the defendant truthfully 

confessed to murdering the victim.13 See Merry, 453 Mass. at 

662. Moreover, even without the defendant's explicit confession

to the murder, the defendant does not contest the statements he 

made to police in 2000 and 2002. He also admitted, without 

recantation, that he knew the victim; that he was angry with her 

for stealing cocaine from him; that the victim was murdered in

his bedroom; and that he knew where the victim's body was 

 

11 The defendant also confessed to Detective McDonald a 

second time in writing.

12 The defendant confessed to Pires that the defendant cut 

out a section of his rug, and Pires testified that he had 

observed the same. The defendant confessed that he stabbed the 

victim seven or eight times, removed the victim's clothes, and 

buried the victim's body face down, three facts that were never 

publicly disclosed.

13 The defendant's recitation of facts that contradict his 

confessions are of no moment, as we view the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth when reviewing the 

sufficiency of the evidence. See Cole, 473 Mass. at 334 ("Here, 

the defendant has marshaled the evidence, or the purported lack 

thereof, in the light most favorable to himself. This is not 

the proper lens through which to view the evidence"); Merry, 453 

Mass. at 662 ("That contradictory evidence exists is not a 

sufficient basis for granting a motion for a required finding of 

not guilty").
14

buried. We conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth, a rational jury could have 

found that the defendant was guilty of murder in the first 

degree on both the theories of premeditation and extreme 

atrocity or cruelty.

4. Review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. We have reviewed the 

entire record pursuant to our responsibilities under G. L. 

c. 278, § 33E. We conclude that there is no basis for reducing 

the defendant's sentence or ordering a new trial. The 

defendant's conviction is affirmed.

So ordered.