Court Opinion

ID: 9714968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:50:22.070201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:30.034273
License: Public Domain

Perretta, J.
(concurring). While I accept the assumption that a conspiracy to possess angel dust is a lesser offense included within a charge of conspiracy to possess that drug with the intent to sell it, see Kuklis v. Commonwealth, 361 Mass. 302 (1972); Waker v. United States, 344 F.2d 795 (1st Cir. 1965), I find it unacceptable that no one can say with certainty what crime the defendant was found to have conspired to commit. See note 2 to the majority opinion. Because today we advise the defendant that the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden of proof as to either offense, it is unnecessary to comment further upon that aspect of the proceedings.
I do not agree that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence from which it could reasonably be inferred that the defendant had knowledge of the bag and its con*570tents. Thus, while I reach the same conclusion as the majority, I do so sooner because it is at that point that I conclude that the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict should have been allowed.