Commonwealth v. David R. Woodley. ( 2023 )

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-518
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
DAVID R. WOODLEY.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
Following a jury-waived trial in the District Court, the
defendant was found guilty of possession of a firearm without a
license in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a). On appeal, the
defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues
that the judge abused his discretion in admitting in evidence a
surveillance video recording that, as the Commonwealth argued,
depicted him with the firearm on which the conviction was based.
We affirm.
Background. Because the defendant challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence, we recite the facts the judge could
have found, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979).
At around 3:45 A.M. on July 21, 2019, New Bedford Police
Officer Mason Oliveira was on duty at the police station where
he was monitoring live video feed from police cameras located
throughout the city of New Bedford. While Oliveira was watching
the video from a camera located on the corner of Ruth and McGurk
Streets, he observed a man later identified as the defendant
playing dice with a group of people. At one point, the
defendant raised his shirt and Oliveira saw a "white handle[d]
object" which he believed was a firearm. Officers St. Germain
and Dunpolo were dispatched from the station to investigate.
Oliveira remained at the station and continued to watch the live
video. When St. Germain and Dunpolo arrived, the group,
including the defendant, dispersed. Oliveira continued to watch
the live feed and saw the defendant walk by a pickup truck,
reach toward his waistband, put something in the back right
corner of the bed of the truck, and then walk away. Thereafter,
the defendant encountered St. Germain and Dunpolo, who pat
frisked him. Nothing was found on the defendant's person and
the defendant left the area.
Meanwhile, based on what Oliveira had observed upon the
arrival of St. Germain and Dunpolo, a third officer, Officer
Riley, was dispatched to the scene. Riley had been watching the
video with Oliveira and he too saw the defendant place an object
into the bed of the truck. Riley arrived within minutes and
told St. Germain and Dunpolo what he (and Oliveira) had seen
while watching the video. All three officers proceeded to look
2
in the back corner of the truck bed where they immediately found
a small caliber firearm with a white handle. The discovery of
the firearm also was video recorded, and the entire video was
admitted in evidence over the defendant's objection. There was
evidence that the defendant did not have a license to carry a
firearm and the parties stipulated that the gun retrieved from
the truck was a firearm as defined by statute.
Discussion. 1. Sufficiency of the evidence. The
defendant filed a motion for a required finding of not guilty at
the close of the Commonwealth's case, which the judge denied.
The defendant argues that the motion should have been allowed
because the item tucked in his waistband could have been a cell
phone and that someone else could have put the firearm in the
truck.
"When we review the denial of a motion for a required
finding of not guilty, we must determine 'whether, after viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements
of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v.
Santos, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 791, 798 (2019), quoting Latimore, 378
Mass. at 677. In this case, there was ample evidence from which
the judge, who reviewed the video, could reasonably infer that
the defendant possessed the firearm that was found in the truck.
While we agree that a rational trier of fact could not have
3
found that the defendant possessed a firearm beyond a reasonable
doubt based solely on that portion of the video that depicted an
item with a white handle in the defendant's waistband, that
evidence coupled with the fact that the defendant also was
observed placing an item from his waistband into the truck bed,
where a firearm similar in size and color to the item observed
in the defendant's waistband was found minutes later, provided a
sufficient basis to draw a "reasonable and possible" inference
that the item in the defendant's waistband was indeed a firearm.
Santos, supra, quoting Commonwealth v. Waller, 90 Mass. App. Ct.
295, 303 (2016). We note also that the video showed the
defendant using a cell phone, which he withdrew from a pocket
and not from his waistband. We further note that although the
defendant asserts that someone else could have placed the
firearm in the bed of the truck, we review the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Commonwealth and not to the
defendant. Accordingly, the motion for a required finding of
not guilty was properly denied.
2. Authentication of the video recording. As noted, the
Commonwealth introduced the video recording that depicted the
events on which the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm
was based. The defendant objected, arguing that the recording
had not been properly authenticated. He advances the same
argument on appeal. Because this issue was preserved, we review
4
"to determine whether the judge abused [his] discretion and, if
so, whether the error resulted in prejudice to the defendant."
Commonwealth v. Connolly, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 580, 586 n.6 (2017).
"To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or
identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what
the proponent claims it is." Commonwealth v. Davis, 487 Mass.
448, 465 (2021), quoting Mass. G. Evid. § 901(a).
"Authenticating a surveillance video is 'typically . . . done
through one of two means -- having an eyewitness testify that
the video is a fair and accurate representation of what he saw
on the day in question, or having someone testify about the
surveillance procedures and the methods used to store and
reproduce the video material.'" Davis, supra at 465-466,
quoting Connolly, 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 586.
Here, the video was authenticated through sufficient
circumstantial evidence such that a trier of fact could find
that it was what it was purported to be. Oliveira testified
that he viewed the video in real time. In addition, Oliveira
testified that he recognized the video as the one he had
previously viewed based on the angle, the location depicted, the
time stamp, and the date. After the video was admitted, St.
Germain testified about his observations at the location shown
in the video, which further corroborated the video's
5
authenticity. In light of these circumstances, we conclude that
the admission of the video in evidence did not amount to an
abuse of discretion.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Vuono,
Sullivan & Singh, JJ.1),
Clerk
Entered: April 25, 2023.
1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
6