Commonwealth v. Camerano
1997 Mass. App. LEXIS 57, 677 N.E.2d 678, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 363 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To convict a defendant of conspiracy, the Commonwealth must prove an agreement to accomplish a criminal purpose, which requires a showing of active commitment or intent beyond mere knowledge or passive acquiescence to another's illegal activity.
Facts:
- On September 13, 1993, law enforcement officers conducting helicopter surveillance spotted a green-colored, roofless structure with vegetation growing in a clearing off Redemption Rock Trail in Sterling.
- The structure was located on property owned by Antonio Camerano and his wife, Sylvia Camerano, which also contained their residence, a house trailer, and a utility trailer, with no neighbors within one hundred yards.
- Robert Howell, a tenant of the Cameranos, rented land on their property for $200 a month, where he pitched his house trailer and, at some point after the initial rental arrangement, built the garden enclosure.
- A plastic water line ran on the ground from an outside tap on the Cameranos’ house to Howell’s trailer.
- When police executed a search warrant on the property, they found 107 marihuana plants, twelve to fifteen feet high, inside Howell's padlocked, windowless garden enclosure.
- Police also found five pounds of dried, cut, and packaged marihuana buried behind Howell’s trailer, and drug paraphernalia including a food processor with marihuana residue, two scales, and zip-lock bags inside his trailer.
- A utility trailer belonging to Gary Pomerlow, a friend of Antonio Camerano who had introduced Camerano to Howell and for whom Camerano occasionally repaired trucks, stored on the property, contained eight pounds of marihuana.
- Police searched the Camerano house thoroughly but found no drugs, drug paraphernalia, a key to the enclosure padlock, or anything else connected to drug use or distribution; Antonio Camerano was away each working day at his job as a security guard.
Procedural Posture:
- Antonio Camerano was charged with conspiracy to possess marihuana with intent to distribute.
- Sylvia Camerano, charged as a codefendant, was acquitted by the jury.
- Antonio Camerano was tried in the District Court, and a jury of six returned a verdict of guilty.
- Camerano made a motion for a required finding of not guilty, which was denied by the trial court.
- Camerano appealed his conviction to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a required finding of not guilty. (Antonio Camerano is the appellant, the Commonwealth is the appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Commonwealth present sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Antonio Camerano entered into an agreement or combination with his tenant to commit conspiracy to possess marihuana with intent to distribute, or did the evidence demonstrate only his mere presence and awareness of the illegal activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Kass, J.
No, the Commonwealth's evidence did not establish Antonio Camerano's participation in an agreement or combination to commit conspiracy to possess marihuana with intent to distribute. To convict Camerano, the Commonwealth needed to prove he agreed with Howell to cultivate, process, and sell marihuana, which requires intent, not mere knowledge or acquiescence. While the strong aroma and the nature of the locked structure might allow a jury to infer Camerano's awareness that something unlawful was occurring, this only proves awareness, not an agreement to further the undertaking. The court found no independent evidence of an agreement, such as unusual rent, unusual water consumption, activity suggesting concurrence with the enterprise, or possession or constructive possession of the contraband. Unlike specific statutes that criminalize knowing presence or suffering criminal conduct to continue, no general statute makes criminal mere knowing presence where marihuana is grown or awareness that it is being grown. Therefore, without evidence of an actual agreement, Camerano's motion for a required finding of not guilty should have been granted.
Dissenting - Laurence, J.
Yes, the jury could have rationally found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Antonio Camerano had an unlawful, though tacit, agreement or combination with Robert Howell. The majority concedes that the bizarre, padlocked garden enclosure and the pungent aroma of marihuana would lead a rational jury to conclude Camerano was unmistakably aware of Howell’s illegal crop. However, the evidence went beyond mere knowledge; Camerano’s conduct facilitated the criminal enterprise. He continued to permit Howell to cultivate the crop despite his power to evict, allowed Howell to use his water supply for the plants, and continued to accept monthly rental money from Howell, whose only apparent income source was his drug activities. These actions demonstrate not just passive acquiescence but “affirmative acquiescence” and approval that stimulated Howell's activities, crossing the line from passive onlooker to conspiratorial participant. Proving a conspiratorial combination or agreement often relies on circumstantial evidence, and it is within the jury's province to determine if a defendant has crossed the line from mere knowledge to participation.
Analysis:
This case draws a critical distinction in conspiracy law between mere knowledge or awareness of criminal activity and actual agreement or intent to participate in a criminal enterprise. It reinforces that circumstantial evidence, while permissible, must be sufficient to establish a 'meeting of the minds' or a 'tacit agreement,' not just suspicion or passive acceptance. The ruling sets a higher bar for proving conspiracy solely through circumstantial evidence of proximity and awareness, emphasizing the need for actions that demonstrate a commitment to the conspiratorial plan. This has significant implications for future prosecutions where the line between mere association and active participation in a conspiracy is blurred, stressing that the jury cannot infer agreement simply from a defendant's failure to stop illegal activity on their property.
