Opinion ID: 203863
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Massachusetts Appeals Court Opinion

Text: On appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts. The Appeals Court stated that while the government's evidence demonstrated that O'Laughlin had a motive of robbery, an opportunity to commit the crime, a means to commit the crime, and a consciousness of guilt, the evidence was not enough to establish guilt. The Appeals Court concluded that [n]othing in the record sufficiently links the defendant to the crime to permit the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator and that [p]iling inference upon inference does not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. O'Laughlin I, 830 N.E.2d at 231-32. In reaching its conclusion, the Appeals Court noted that the bat was only consistent with the weapon used in the attack; that O'Laughlin's lies to the police concerning his whereabouts and his removal of the stain from his closet door, while certainly permissible to show a guilty conscience, cannot fill the gap in the proof of identity; that O'Laughlin did not show physical strain in his appearance and demeanor when confronted by the police just about twelve minutes after the attack, which would have been consistent with someone who had just committed such a brutal attack; and that the third-party culprit evidence in this case detracted from the government's case. Id. at 232-34. Thus, the Appeals Court reversed O'Laughlin's convictions and directed that judgments be entered in his favor.