Commonwealth v. Squires

By the Court (Agnes, Sullivan & Blake, JJ.), Clerk

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its 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 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).

Following a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant was convicted of possession of burglarious instruments. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) the evidence of possession of burglarious tools was insufficient, (2) the jury instructions on possession of burglarious tools lowered the Commonwealth's burden of proof, and (3) the prosecutor improperly vouched for police witnesses in his closing argument. These are the same arguments made by codefendant Steven E. Angier in his appeal, Appeals Court No. 14-P-1924. Indeed, the defendant simply incorporated Angier's arguments by reference and requested that his appeal be joined with Angier's. On December 14, 2015, this panel rejected Angier's arguments and affirmed the judgments in an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to our rule 1:28. Commonwealth v. Angier, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 1117 (2015), further appellate review pending, Supreme Judicial Ct. No. FAR-24013. For the same reasons set forth in that memorandum and order, the defendant's arguments in the current appeal fail.

Judgments affirmed.

By the Court (Agnes, Sullivan & Blake, JJ.),

/s/

Clerk Entered: January 25, 2016.