Commonwealth v. Cook
No reporter information provided (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for felony-murder based on an underlying felony that is not inherently dangerous to human life, such as unarmed robbery, is permissible if the Commonwealth proves the defendant committed the felony with conscious disregard for human life.
Facts:
- On January 25, 1990, Jesse McKie and Rigoberto Carrion were walking with a friend, Tracy Williams, in Cambridge.
- A group of five or six men, including Stephen J. Cook, approached them, and someone in the group demanded McKie's jacket.
- The group surrounded McKie and began to beat him severely as they pulled off his leather jacket.
- During the assault, one of the attackers, Ventry Gordon, produced a knife and fatally stabbed McKie in the chest.
- Immediately after the attack on McKie, the group attacked and severely beat Rigoberto Carrion.
- Ventry Gordon then fatally stabbed Carrion in the chest, and the group dispersed.
- Later that night, Cook went to the Cambridge police station, stating he was there to post bail for Ricardo Parks, one of the other men involved in the attack who had been arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen J. Cook was indicted in the Superior Court on two counts of felony-murder and one count of armed robbery.
- Cook filed a pretrial motion to suppress physical evidence and statements.
- The motion judge allowed the motion as to a knife seized during a pat down but denied the remainder of the motion.
- The Commonwealth dismissed the initial indictments and reindicted Cook.
- Cook's renewed motion to suppress was denied by the trial judge.
- Cook's case was severed from his codefendants and he was tried separately.
- At the close of the Commonwealth's case, Cook moved for required findings of not guilty, which the trial judge denied.
- A jury convicted Cook on two counts of felony-murder in the first degree and one count of the lesser-included offense of unarmed robbery.
- Cook appealed his convictions to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
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 a defendant of felony-murder under a joint venture theory when the underlying felony is unarmed robbery, if the evidence shows the defendant participated in a vicious group assault that, by its nature, demonstrated a conscious disregard for human life?
Opinions:
Majority - Liacos, C.J.
Yes. There is sufficient evidence for a felony-murder conviction when a defendant participates in an unarmed robbery that is carried out in a manner dangerous to human life, thereby showing a conscious disregard for that life. The court reasoned that while unarmed robbery is not an inherently dangerous felony, it can serve as the predicate for a felony-murder conviction if the circumstances of its commission demonstrate a conscious disregard for human life, as established in Commonwealth v. Moran. In this case, Cook's participation in a vicious group beating during the robbery of McKie was sufficient for a jury to find he acted with such disregard. The evidence, including eyewitness testimony and Cook's own statements, placed him at the scene as an active participant in the brutal assaults on both victims, whose deaths flowed naturally and probably from the joint criminal enterprise. The court also held that Cook was not under arrest until he was formally told so by police, as a reasonable person in his circumstances—having entered the police station voluntarily—would have felt free to leave. Finally, the court found no error in the judge's refusal to instruct the jury on withdrawal from a joint venture, as there was no evidence that Cook communicated any intent to withdraw to his coventurers.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the felony-murder rule in Massachusetts for felonies not inherently dangerous to human life. It affirms the principle from Commonwealth v. Moran that the Commonwealth must prove the defendant acted with a conscious disregard for human life. The significance lies in establishing that the manner of the crime's commission, such as a vicious group assault during an unarmed robbery, can itself provide the evidence for this required mental state. This lowers the barrier for prosecutors in group violence cases, allowing a felony-murder conviction for a participant who did not wield the fatal weapon, based on the foreseeably lethal nature of the collective violence used to commit the underlying felony.
