Court Opinion

ID: 9947262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 15:06:49.266695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:17.932292
License: Public Domain

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-903

                                  COMMONWEALTH

                                       vs.

                              ABERALDO DESOUSA.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       After a bench trial in the District Court on a complaint

 charging larceny over $250, the defendant was convicted of the

 lesser included offense of larceny under $250.             On appeal, he

 claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish the

 intent element of the crime.         Because there was sufficient

 evidence from which a finder of fact could infer the requisite

 intent beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm.

       Background.     The defendant rented a condominium unit from

 the victim but later defaulted on his payment obligations and

 eventually left the premises.         The victim brought suit against

 the defendant and obtained a judgment for possession and was

 awarded approximately $6,000 for unpaid rent, which he was

 ultimately unable to collect.         When the victim regained

 possession of the property, he found the apartment to be dirty
and damaged.    In addition, he discovered that certain paintings

and statues were missing.    He attempted to contact the defendant

about the missing items to no avail.

     Thereafter, the defendant was charged with larceny over

$250 based on the victim's allegation that he stole the artwork.

At trial, the defendant testified in his own defense and stated

that he met with the victim inside the condominium unit and

there was an old curtain on the wall and an old painting with no

value.    The victim told the defendant that he could keep those

items or throw them in the trash.     The defendant further

asserted that the victim's claim of theft was a sham and that he

was accusing the defendant of taking the items in order to

recover through a criminal restitution order what he was unable

to recover through the civil case.

     Discussion.   On appeal, the defendant argues that the

evidence was insufficient to prove the intent element of the

crime.    To prove larceny, the Commonwealth was required to show

that the defendant took the personal property of another with

the specific intent to deprive the other of the property

permanently.    See Commonwealth v. Liebenow, 470 Mass. 151, 156

(2014).    In reviewing a claim for the sufficiency of the

evidence, we ask whether, viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth, a reasonable fact finder could

conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable

                                  2
doubt.   See Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 477 Mass. 658, 666 (2017).

Evidence of an intent to steal may be inferred "from the actual

commission of the felonious act . . . as well as 'from the

circumstances attending the act.'"   Commonwealth v. Hill, 57

Mass. App. Ct. 240, 247 (2003), quoting Commonwealth v. Lauzier,

53 Mass. App. Ct. 626, 629 (2002).   Moreover, a trier of fact

may assess the evidence in light of common sense, Commonwealth

v. Gerhardt, 477 Mass. 775, 787 (2017), and presume that persons

intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions.

See Commonwealth v. Brown, 477 Mass. 805, 816-817 (2017), cert.

denied, 139 S. Ct. 54 (2018).

     Here, viewed in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth, the evidence established that the victim's

paintings and statues were in the unit when the defendant moved

in, that the defendant eventually failed to pay rent and

disappeared during the rental period without dropping off his

key, and the victim subsequently found his art to be missing

from the apartment.   Further, the defendant failed to return the

victim's calls and the victim could not otherwise contact him.

From these facts, a reasonable fact finder could conclude beyond

a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the art belonged to

the victim and took it with the intent to permanently deprive

the victim of his property.

                                 3
       The defendant contends, however, that he adequately raised

the defense of his "honest and reasonable belief" that he had

permission to take the property and that the Commonwealth failed

to satisfy its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

his subjective belief was not honestly held.    See Liebenow, 470

Mass. at 161-162 (honest but mistaken belief that property is

abandoned is affirmative defense to larceny).    This argument is

unavailing.    The only evidence of the defendant's honest belief

was his own testimony that the victim told him he could take the

art.    The judge specifically discredited the defendant's

testimony.    Therefore, the defendant's affirmative defense was

effectively negated by the judge's credibility determination.

       Although the defendant contends that the judge's findings

concerning witness credibility were clearly erroneous, the

"weight and credibility of the witnesses' testimony are solely

for the fact finder and are not proper subjects for appeal."

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 651, 663 (2017).    The

judge explained that he credited the victim's testimony in

general and accounted for any discrepancies concerning the

property and its value as natural, due to the passage of time.

Given the discrepancy about the value of the artwork, the judge

                                  4
found the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of

larceny under $250.    There was no error.

                                      Judgment affirmed.

                                      By the Court (Vuono, Singh &
                                        Englander, JJ. 1),

                                      Assistant Clerk

Entered: March 4, 2024.

1   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  5