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

23-P-784

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

DEREK LIMA.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, Derek Lima, was charged with one count of 

receiving stolen property in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 60. 

After the close of evidence in his jury trial, the defendant 

moved for a required finding of not guilty, which the trial 

judge denied. The jury then returned a verdict of guilty. The 

defendant now appeals from his conviction, arguing that the 

trial judge erred in denying his motion for a required finding 

of not guilty, as the evidence was not sufficient to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the requisite knowledge 

that the property was stolen. We affirm.

Background. Because the defendant challenges the 

sufficiency of the evidence, we summarize the facts of this case 

in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. See 

Commonwealth v. Martin, 447 Mass. 274, 287 (2006).
2

On November 12, 2015, the residence of Matthew Cross was 

broken into and several items were stolen. Among the stolen 

items were five electric guitars, jewelry, and electronics. One 

of the stolen guitars was a 1979 Gibson Les Paul (Les Paul) that 

was missing its pick guard and had other unique markings. The 

Les Paul had an estimated value of approximately $2,000. After 

the items were stolen, the police created a flyer with 

descriptions of the stolen guitars and photographs of those 

guitar models, which were distributed to pawn shops and music 

stores in the area.

A week later, on November 19, 2015, the defendant brought a 

1979 Les Paul to a pawn shop called Ideal Jewelry and Loan

(Ideal). The Les Paul was missing its pick guard. Ideal

offered a fifty dollar loan for the pawn of the guitar, which 

the defendant accepted. Ideal created a customer data sheet for 

the defendant, which included a photograph of him, a scan of his 

identification, and his fingerprint. This customer data sheet 

was connected to the pawn ticket that was generated for the pawn 

of the 1979 Les Paul.

The defendant later1 returned to Ideal seeking to sell the 

Les Paul he had previously pawned. Ideal offered the defendant 

1 The owner of Ideal testified that the defendant returned 

on November 25, 2015 to sell the Les Paul. However, the 

detective who worked on the investigation testified that he did 

not receive a phone call from Ideal until December 1, 2015, and 
3

$186 for the Les Paul in addition to the previous fifty dollar

loan. The owner of Ideal testified at trial that he estimated 

that the Les Paul was worth at least $2,000.

On that occasion, the defendant also attempted to pawn or 

sell a second guitar.2 The owner of Ideal declined to accept the 

second guitar, as he recognized it from the flyer of stolen 

guitars he had been given by the police. Having recognized that 

the Les Paul was also one of the guitars on the flyer, the owner 

of Ideal contacted the police after the defendant left the store 

on December 1, 2015. Mr. Cross later identified the Les Paul 

that the police recovered from Ideal as the one that was stolen 

from his residence.

Discussion. In analyzing whether there is sufficient 

evidence to support a conviction, the "question is 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. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), quoting 

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We review the 

that he was told that the guitar had been sold to Ideal that 

same day. The confusion regarding the exact date on which the 

defendant returned to Ideal does not affect our decision.

2 We note that the defendant is not charged with respect to 

this second guitar. Therefore, we consider his possession and 

attempted pawn or sale of the second guitar only in the context 

of the conviction relating to the Les Paul.
4

denial of a motion for a required finding of not guilty de novo. 

Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 406, 410 (2013).

To convict a defendant of the crime of receiving stolen 

property, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

that the defendant knew that the property was stolen. 

Commonwealth v. Dellamano, 393 Mass. 132, 137-138 (1984), citing

Commonwealth v. Boris, 317 Mass. 309, 315 (1944). Because it 

may not be possible to prove a defendant's knowledge by direct 

evidence, the Commonwealth may prove knowledge "by inference 

from all the facts and circumstances developed at the trial." 

Dellamano, supra at 136-137, quoting Commonwealth v. Holiday, 

349 Mass. 126, 128 (1965). As the jury were instructed without 

objection, the Commonwealth may prove the knowledge element by 

showing "that [the defendant] actually knew the property was 

stolen or at least that he believed that it was stolen." See 

Commonwealth v. Hunt, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 565, 568-570 (2000).

The defendant argues that the Commonwealth did not present 

sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he 

knew the Les Paul was stolen. We disagree. We find that all 

the facts and circumstances were sufficient to support an 

inference by a rational juror of the defendant's knowledge that 

the Les Paul was stolen. See id.

First, the timing of the defendant's pawn of the Les Paul 

to Ideal tends to support an inference that the defendant knew
5

it was stolen. The guitars were stolen from Cross's residence 

on November 12, 2015, and just one week later, on November 19, 

2015, the defendant attempted to pawn the Les Paul that Cross 

later identified as one of his stolen guitars. Our case law 

establishes that, if a jury finds that a defendant was in 

possession of recently stolen property, they are permitted to 

draw the inference that the defendant knew the property was 

stolen. See Commonwealth v. Kirkpatrick, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 595, 

600 (1988). "The inference permitted by possession of recently 

stolen property can be a strong one." Id. While there is no 

bright-line rule defining what "recently" means in this context, 

given the evidence in this case, the passage of a mere one week 

between the theft and the pawn of the Les Paul was a fact the 

jury could have weighed in favor of the inference that the 

defendant knew that it was stolen.

Second, the defendant was in possession of not just one, 

but two of the stolen guitars, and he tried to sell or pawn the 

second after he successfully pawned the first. On either 

November 25 or December 1, 2015, the defendant returned to Ideal 

with the second stolen guitar and attempted to pawn or sell it. 

Although they were not required to, the jury could have 

reasonably inferred that the defendant pawned the Les Paul first 

to test the waters at this pawn shop and then, once that pawn 

was successful, returned to attempt to sell the two guitars 
6

outright. The second visit to Ideal and the possession and 

attempt to pawn or sell a second stolen guitar also support the 

inference that the defendant knew the Les Paul was stolen.

Finally, there was evidence at trial that the Les Paul was 

worth significantly more than the $236 the defendant accepted 

from Ideal for it. Cross estimated, based on online searches, 

that the Les Paul was worth between $1,500 and $3,500 around the 

time of trial. At the time of the theft, Cross had estimated 

that the Les Paul was worth approximately $2,500. The owner of 

Ideal testified that he expected that the Les Paul would sell 

for a minimum of about $2,000. The defendant argues that the 

pawn and sale of the Les Paul at a significant undervaluation 

was not evidence of the defendant's knowledge that it had been 

stolen because he did not request the fifty dollar pawn loan or 

the additional $186 for the sale. Rather, he argues, Ideal 

offered him a certain amount of money and he accepted it, not 

knowing how much the Les Paul was actually worth. The defendant 

relies on testimony that Ideal "like[s] to pay as little as 

possible because that means more profit for [them]." Ideal's 

owner also testified that the employee who interacted with the 

defendant during both the pawn and the sale "was a very hard 

negotiator." However, that testimony did not require the jury 

to draw the inference that the defendant did not know the Les 

Paul was stolen; the inference that the defendant accepted such 
7

a low value rather than attempting to negotiate a higher price

because he knew the Les Paul was stolen remained reasonable.

The defendant asserts that he did not behave in a manner 

consistent with knowledge that the Les Paul was stolen. For 

example, there was no evidence that the defendant altered the 

appearance of the Les Paul or attempted to remove the serial 

number before pawning it, tried to hide his identity during the 

pawning process providing identification and a fingerprint, or 

had a history of dealing in stolen merchandise.

Although the jury could have credited these facts, they 

were not required to. And while none of the facts we've 

described above standing alone may have been sufficient to prove 

the defendant's knowledge –- something we need not and do not 

decide –- all the facts and circumstances of this case, when 

viewed in the required light, are, taken together, sufficient to 
8

support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

defendant knew that the Les Paul was stolen.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Rubin, 

Englander & D'Angelo, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: June 27, 2024.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.