Lexplug logoLexplug

Commonwealth v. Connors

Massachusetts Appeals Court
95 Mass. App. Ct. 46, 120 N.E.3d 743 (2019)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A conviction for felony-murder is appropriate where the predicate felony is kidnapping, as kidnapping has an independent felonious purpose from the homicide and does not merge with it. Sufficient evidence of a joint venture to kidnap exists when defendants act in a coordinated manner to forcibly confine a victim, even if they do not participate in the subsequent killing.


Facts:

  • On August 12, 2014, at the Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, inmate William Sires, who was in his seventies and used a cane, had a physical altercation with inmate Michael Freeman.
  • Following the altercation, Freeman conferred with fellow inmates Chad Connors and Allen Erazo.
  • As Sires later walked through the common area, Freeman and another inmate entered cell twenty-three.
  • Erazo then approached Sires from behind, grabbed him, and forcibly pulled the resisting Sires into cell twenty-three where Freeman was waiting.
  • After Erazo exited the cell, Connors immediately stepped forward and pulled a curtain across the cell door, obscuring the view from the common area.
  • Connors then appeared to stand watch nearby while the cell door was closed for approximately one and a half minutes.
  • Approximately thirty minutes later, a correction officer discovered Sires beaten to death inside the cell with Freeman present.
  • Freeman confessed to the killing on the spot, stating, 'I did this' and 'I beat him to death. I killed him.'

Procedural Posture:

  • The Commonwealth charged Chad Connors and Allen Erazo with murder in the first degree as joint venturers in the Superior Court.
  • On April 8, 2016, the principal assailant, Michael Freeman, pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree.
  • On May 6, 2016, following a jury trial, both Connors and Erazo were convicted of murder in the second degree on a theory of felony-murder with the predicate felony of kidnapping. Erazo's conviction was also based on a theory of intent-based murder.
  • Connors and Erazo (appellants) appealed their convictions to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the Commonwealth (appellee).

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is there sufficient evidence to convict defendants of felony-murder, based on a predicate felony of kidnapping, where the defendants' joint actions were limited to forcing the victim into a cell where he was subsequently killed by another person?


Opinions:

Majority - Kinder, J.

Yes. Sufficient evidence supports the felony-murder convictions because the defendants' coordinated actions established a joint venture to commit kidnapping, which served as a valid predicate felony. The evidence, particularly video surveillance, showed Erazo forcibly pulling the victim into a cell against his will and Connors immediately covering the door, which legally constitutes forcible confinement. A rational jury could infer from the defendants' preceding conversations and coordinated movements that they knowingly participated in a plan to confine the victim so that Freeman could assault him. Furthermore, the kidnapping does not merge with the homicide because the crime of kidnapping has an independent felonious purpose—unlawful confinement—that is separate and distinct from the act causing physical injury or death. Therefore, the kidnapping serves as a proper predicate felony for a felony-murder conviction.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the legal principle that accomplices who participate in a predicate felony can be held liable for a resulting death under the felony-murder rule. It clarifies that under Massachusetts' merger doctrine, kidnapping is considered an independent felony because its essential element, unlawful confinement, has a purpose distinct from causing physical harm. The case serves as a strong example of how joint venture liability can be established through circumstantial evidence of coordinated action, even when the defendants did not physically participate in the final homicidal act. The court's refusal to retroactively apply the new malice requirement from Commonwealth v. Brown also reinforces the doctrine of prospective application for significant changes to common law criminal standards.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Commonwealth v. Connors (2019) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Connors