joint venture exception in Massachusetts

2017Recalling the reasoning behind the joint venture exception, we look to whether the "joint venturers [continue to] share the commonality of interests which is some assurance that their statements are reliable." Id. at 522 , quoting Colon-Cruz, 408 Mass. at 543 .

2016See Commonwealth v. Colon-Cruz, 408 Mass. 533, 543 (1990) (criminal enterprise ended when joint venturer apprehended).

2016This fact was not introduced in evidence at the defendant’s trial. 2 “Under the joint venture exception to the hearsay rule, ‘[o]ut-of-court statements by joint criminal venturers are admissible against the others if the statements are made during the pendency of the criminal enterprise and in furtherance of it.’ ” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 431 Mass. 387, 393 (2000), S.C., 464 Mass. 660 , cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 248 (2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Clarke, 418 Mass. 207, 218 (1994).

2014“Under the joint venture exception to the hearsay rule, ‘[o]utof-court statements by joint criminal venturers are admissible against the others if the statements are made during the pendency of the criminal enterprise and in furtherance of it.’ ” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 431 Mass. 387, 393 (2000), S.C., 464 Mass. 660 (2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Clarke, 418 Mass. 207, 218 (1994).

2016This fact was not introduced in evidence at the defendant’s trial. 2 “Under the joint venture exception to the hearsay rule, ‘[o]ut-of-court statements by joint criminal venturers are admissible against the others if the statements are made during the pendency of the criminal enterprise and in furtherance of it.’ ” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 431 Mass. 387, 393 (2000), S.C., 464 Mass. 660 , cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 248 (2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Clarke, 418 Mass. 207, 218 (1994).

2014“Under the joint venture exception to the hearsay rule, ‘[o]utof-court statements by joint criminal venturers are admissible against the others if the statements are made during the pendency of the criminal enterprise and in furtherance of it.’ ” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 431 Mass. 387, 393 (2000), S.C., 464 Mass. 660 (2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Clarke, 418 Mass. 207, 218 (1994).

2017See Commonwealth v. Benitez, 464 Mass. 686, 689 (2013), citing Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449, 467-468 (2009).7 7 Both parties cite the formulation of the joint venture standard that was commonly used in jury instructions prior to our decision in Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (2009).

2017See Commonwealth v. Benitez, 464 Mass. 686, 689 (2013), citing Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449, 467-468 (2009).7 7 Both parties cite the formulation of the joint venture standard that was commonly used in jury instructions prior to our decision in Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (2009).

2019See Commonwealth v. Soares , 377 Mass. 461 , 470, 387 N.E.2d 499 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 881 , 100 S.Ct. 170 , 62 L.Ed.2d 110 (1979) ("The theory underlying joint enterprise is that one who aids, commands, counsels, or encourages commission of a crime while sharing with the principal the mental state required for the crime is guilty as a principal").

2019See Commonwealth v. Soares , 377 Mass. 461 , 470, 387 N.E.2d 499 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 881 , 100 S.Ct. 170 , 62 L.Ed.2d 110 (1979) ("The theory underlying joint enterprise is that one who aids, commands, counsels, or encourages commission of a crime while sharing with the principal the mental state required for the crime is guilty as a principal").

2019See Commonwealth v. Soares , 377 Mass. 461 , 470, 387 N.E.2d 499 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 881 , 100 S.Ct. 170 , 62 L.Ed.2d 110 (1979) ("The theory underlying joint enterprise is that one who aids, commands, counsels, or encourages commission of a crime while sharing with the principal the mental state required for the crime is guilty as a principal").

2019See Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461, 470 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 881 (1979) ("The theory underlying joint enterprise is that one who aids, commands, counsels, or encourages commission of a crime while sharing with the principal the mental state required convict.

2017See Commonwealth v. Braley. 449 Mass. 316, 319 (2007).

2014See Commonwealth v. Braley, supra at 322 ; Commonwealth v. Anderson, 445 Mass. 195, 211 (2005), quoting Commonwealth v. Colon-Cruz, 408 Mass. 533, 543 (1990).

2009One year after the Soares decision, in Commonwealth v. Casale, 381 Mass. 167 (1980), this court applied the Soares formulation of the joint venture rule to a substantially different set of facts, where the victim had been shot by a gun fired from a playground where the two codefendants were seen (with three others), but there was no evidence as to who had actually fired the gun.

2009See id. at 173-174.

2019See Commonwealth v. Soares , 377 Mass. 461 , 470, 387 N.E.2d 499 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 881 , 100 S.Ct. 170 , 62 L.Ed.2d 110 (1979) ("The theory underlying joint enterprise is that one who aids, commands, counsels, or encourages commission of a crime while sharing with the principal the mental state required for the crime is guilty as a principal").

2019See Commonwealth v. Soares , 377 Mass. 461 , 470, 387 N.E.2d 499 , cert. denied, 444 U.S. 881 , 100 S.Ct. 170 , 62 L.Ed.2d 110 (1979) ("The theory underlying joint enterprise is that one who aids, commands, counsels, or encourages commission of a crime while sharing with the principal the mental state required for the crime is guilty as a principal").

2017See also Rankins, supra at 474 (statement two years prior to killings in which declarant expressed "disdain for her husband" [the victim] admissible in prosecution of coventurer as "relevant to whether there was a later conspiracy").

2017See Commonwealth v. Benitez, 464 Mass. 686, 689 (2013), citing Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449, 467-468 (2009).7 7 Both parties cite the formulation of the joint venture standard that was commonly used in jury instructions prior to our decision in Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (2009).

2016See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004); Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 445 Mass. 1, 9 (2005), cert. denied, 548 U.S. 926 (2006).

2016See Commonwealth v. Freeman, 430 Mass. 111, 117 (1999) (statements made subsequent to crime when coventurers are attempting to evade arrest are admissible); Colon-Cruz, supra at 545 (where joint venturers attempted to conceal evidence of crime and to avoid detection and detention, interests “still were closely bound together, tending to ensure the reliability of their statements”).

2016See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004); Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 445 Mass. 1, 9 (2005), cert. denied, 548 U.S. 926 (2006).

2016See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wood, 469 Mass. 266, 278-281 (2014) (statements made by joint venturer to girl friend on night of murder and several days later deemed admissible); Braley , 449 Mass, at 319-320 (once joint venture established, statements made by coventurer to girl friend in aftermath of shooting deemed admissible against defendant).

2015With respect to the statement in Snow’s letter, the defendant argues that it was inadmissible because it was written two years after the crime and long after the object of the conspiracy had been achieved. 7 In general, statements made by coconspirators “shown to have taken place after the conspiracy came to an end ... are not admissible against the other defendants.” Commonwealth v. Shea, 323 Mass. 406, 414 (1948).

2015The personal papers of the defendant at issue in United States v. Cohen, 796 F.2d 20, 21 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 854 (1986), would not appear to be covered by the PCCF policy. 21 Nor could any claim be made that the Commonwealth’s request for, and the judge’s decision to give, a joint venture instruction was a surprise.

2014See Commonwealth v. Braley, supra at 322 ; Commonwealth v. Anderson, 445 Mass. 195, 211 (2005), quoting Commonwealth v. Colon-Cruz, 408 Mass. 533, 543 (1990).

2013See Commonwealth v. Williams, 450 Mass. 645, 652 (2008), quoting Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 443 Mass. 799, 806 (2005).

2013See Commonwealth v. Bright, 463 Mass. 421, 426 (2012); Commonwealth v. Borans, 379 Mass. 117, 146 (1979); Commonwealth v. Blow, 370 Mass. 401, 407-408 (1976).