Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/401/401mass771.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:44:34+00:00

Document:
Present: WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN, LYNCH, & O'CONNOR, JJ.
INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department, two on June 13, 1986, and two on September 9, 1986.
A motion to dismiss was heard by Robert A. Mulligan, J.
Gerald F. Muldoon, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
indictments allege that the defendant stole over $4,000,000 from his employer during a period of approximately five years. The Commonwealth asserts that this was accomplished by the defendant's drawing company checks payable to himself in amounts ranging from $2,083.27 to $60,811.75. The false entry indictments allege that, during the same period, the defendant made 128 false entries in the company's books.
The defendant moved for a dismissal of the indictments on the ground that the offenses charged by the larceny indictments constituted only one crime of continuing larceny, and the offenses charged in the other indictments constituted only one continuing crime of false entry. Agreeing with the defendant, and having the defendant's consent, the judge issued an order not dismissing the indictments "in full," but granting the Commonwealth leave to amend the indictments to charge only one crime of larceny and one crime of false entry. The Commonwealth appealed, and we took the case on our own initiative. We treat the indictments as effectively having been dismissed. The defendant makes no contention that the case is not properly before us for appellate review. We reverse the decision of the motion judge.
governing the making of false entries, but it is consistent with our case law as well. For instance, in Commonwealth v. DeVincent, 358 Mass. 592 , 594-595 (1971), the defendant appealed from convictions under an indictment in two counts charging attempted extortion. The evidence showed that on two occasions within an eleven-day period the defendant threatened the same victim and demanded money from him. Relying on Commonwealth v. Stasiun, 349 Mass. 38 (1965), the defendant argued on appeal that his crime was but one continuing offense. Id. at 594. This court rejected that argument. See also Commonwealth v. Beal, 314 Mass. 210 , 226-227 (1943) (multiple successive payments made pursuant to a single corrupt arrangement held to constitute multiple crimes of acceptance of a bribe); Commonwealth v. Mannos, 311 Mass. 94 , 113 (1942).
solicitations could, as is well established, be charged as separate offenses. Commonwealth v. Mannos, 311 Mass. 94 , 113 . Commonwealth v. Beal, 314 Mass. 210 , 227 ." Id. at 45. Similarly, successive takings of property actuated by a single, continuing criminal impulse or intent or pursuant to a general larcenous scheme may, but need not, be charged as one crime.
Commonwealth v. England, 350 Mass. 83 (1966), is not authority for the proposition that successive thefts of money pursuant to a single, continuing impulse or scheme must be charged as one crime. That case is merely authority for the proposition that such thefts may, at the option of the Commonwealth, be so charged. In that case, involving a series of thefts totalling more than $100, this court considered "the validity of an indictment for one felony committed pursuant to a single scheme between dates certain." Id. at 86. We quoted with approval the statement in People v. Cox, 286 N.Y. 137, 145 (1941), that "[l]ogic and reason join with all the authorities that have considered the question, in holding that the People may prosecute for a single crime a defendant who, pursuant to a single intent and one general fraudulent plan, steals in the aggregate as a felon and not as a petty thief." Commonwealth v. England, supra at 87.
to no greater maximum penalty than is one who steals $101 from his employer on one occasion.
In Commonwealth v. Donovan, supra, we held that, in the circumstances of that case, the Commonwealth could charge the defendant with only one crime of larceny. But that case is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar because there, unlike here, the defendant committed only one act. In Donovan, the defendants placed a phony night deposit box on the wall of a bank for one night and stole the deposits that were placed in the box by unsuspecting depositors. There was but one incident in Donovan, not 180 separate checks converted to money on 180 separate occasions, or 128 separate book entries.
The motion judge's decision is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.