Opinion
20-P-245
06-24-2021
COMMONWEALTH v. Bradley DEFLUMERI.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
A jury convicted the defendant on five indictments charging home invasion. On appeal the defendant argues that the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to support the convictions. We affirm.
The jury also convicted the defendant on two indictments charging threat to commit a crime, four indictments charging assault for purpose of intimidation, and four indictments charging violation of civil rights. The defendant makes no argument challenging these convictions on appeal.
Background. The jury could have found the following facts. On October 6, 2017, five individuals (occupants) were studying in a rear bedroom of a Sunderland apartment. The occupants, who were all from India, consisted of three women, Ishita Ankit, Mili Shah, and Sanskruti Shah, and two men, Shubham Jain and Ashish Rajan. Around 9:30 P.M. , the occupants heard a loud knock on the door. When Mili opened it, she saw a man, later identified as the defendant, with a metal rod in his hand. The defendant yelled, "Who harassed my wife?" Hearing the defendant's shouts, Ankit, Sanskruti, and Jain left the bedroom and went to the living room, closer to the defendant and the door. Rajan remained in the bedroom, where he heard Ankit say, "Oh my god, he has a steel rod." When Mili moved aside, the defendant stepped into the apartment, shouting that an Indian man had harassed his wife.
Because they share a surname, we will refer to Mili Shah and Sanskruti Shah (who are not related) by their first names.
At some point, the defendant spotted Jain, became angrier, and advanced further inside, yelling, "I'll fucking kill you," "How dare you look at my wife," and "You harassed my wife." When the women explained that no one had said anything to his wife, the defendant said, "Not you girls. Some Indian man harassed my wife." The defendant asked if there was another man in the apartment. When Ankit denied that there was, the defendant told Jain, "[T]hen it's you."
After someone suggested that the defendant had the wrong apartment, the defendant left, and the occupants locked the door and called 911. Officers responded to the scene and observed that the five occupants appeared "upset and shaken." Based on some initial investigation, the officers proceeded to a nearby apartment and overheard a male voice say, "I told them I would kill them. I didn't use the tire iron." The officers knocked on the door and encountered two individuals inside the apartment -- the defendant and his wife.
According to an officer, the defendant stated that he learned from his wife that individuals of Indian nationality yelled out the window, "Look at her. Look at her." The defendant further stated that he went to the apartment to confront those individuals, banged on the door, went inside, and threatened to kill all of them while holding the rod. The Commonwealth introduced the rod and a photograph of it at trial.
Discussion. We review the defendant's sufficiency challenge to determine "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime[ ] beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Ayala, 481 Mass. 46, 51 (2018). To sustain the home invasion convictions, the Commonwealth was required to prove that the defendant "entered a dwelling, while armed with a dangerous weapon, and ‘use[d] force or threaten[ed] the imminent use of force upon any person within such dwelling.’ " Commonwealth v. Brown, 477 Mass. 805, 812 n.5 (2017), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 54 (2018), quoting Commonwealth v. Bois, 476 Mass. 15, 29 (2016). See G. L. c. 265, § 18C. The multiple convictions corresponding to the five occupants were proper if the Commonwealth met its burden of proof as to each occupant. See Commonwealth v. Antonmarchi, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 463, 468 (2007) (concluding that "the unit of prosecution [for G. L. c. 265, § 18C ] is the person assaulted").
1. Dangerous weapon. The defendant first argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was armed with a dangerous weapon. The focus when evaluating whether an object is a dangerous weapon as used in a home invasion is the "instrumentality's potential for harm as it might have objectively seemed to a reasonable individual." Commonwealth v. Tarrant, 367 Mass. 411, 414 (1975). See Commonwealth v. Mattei, 455 Mass. 840, 846 & n.12 (2010). Relevant factors include "the nature, size, and shape of the object as well as the way in which it is handled or controlled." Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 307 n.5 (1980), quoting Tarrant, supra at 416.
The evidence presented, including the characteristics of the metal rod, the way that the defendant held it, and the circumstances of the incident, permitted the jury to find that the rod was dangerous as used. See Commonwealth v. Bradshaw, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 74, 82-83 (2014). There was evidence that the rod, which the jury were able to view at trial, was a "breaker bar," similar to a tire iron, approximately twelve to eighteen inches in length and three to five pounds in weight, with one end thicker than the other. The defendant held the rod "very strongly" and with a tight grip as he entered the apartment to confront the occupants. The defendant held the rod in this manner as he angrily yelled and advanced further inside. One occupant testified that it appeared as if the defendant "could have lifted that rod and hit any one of [them]." This evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the rod, as used by the defendant, was reasonably "capable of producing serious bodily harm." Mattei, 455 Mass. at 844, quoting Commonwealth v. Tevlin, 433 Mass. 305, 310 (2001). See Bradshaw, supra.
2. Threat of imminent use of force. The defendant next argues that the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to prove that he threatened the imminent use of force on the three female occupants (Ankit, Mili, and Sanskruti) and the male occupant who remained in the rear bedroom during the incident (Rajan). We disagree.
The defendant does not argue that there was insufficient evidence of a threat as to Jain.
The evidence was that the defendant, tightly gripping a metal rod, entered the apartment yelling and angrily demanded information about inappropriate comments made to his wife, scaring all of the occupants. Although the defendant soon focused his anger on Jain, the evidence permitted the jury to infer that the defendant's initial confrontational shouting and aggressive behavior with the rod constituted threats of imminent use of force as to the entire group and would have been reasonably perceived by each occupant as such. See Commonwealth v. Bell, 460 Mass. 294, 301-302 (2011) (sufficient evidence that defendant threatened imminent use of force on all apartment occupants when he crashed through window and "moved at a rapid pace toward the family, spraying [gasoline] as he approached in a manner that reasonably could be characterized as threatening").
This conclusion applies equally to Rajan, the occupant in the rear bedroom. See Commonwealth v. Martinez, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 288, 290 (2014) ("there is no requirement that the Commonwealth prove the defendant knew that the specific victim of the assault was present"). Rajan testified that he heard Ankit say that the defendant was armed with a steel rod, heard the defendant's threats to kill, and heard his shouts become louder as if he were advancing further into the apartment. Rajan then heard the defendant declare that he was specifically looking for Indian men. As a result, Rajan stayed in the bedroom and waited to call 911 until the defendant left because he feared that the defendant would "beat one of [them]" should he discover that there was an additional man in the apartment. This evidence was sufficient to prove that Rajan reasonably perceived the threat.
The Commonwealth's evidence did not deteriorate after it rested its case. Although the defendant testified, the jury were free to disbelieve his testimony. See Commonwealth v. Nhut Huynh, 452 Mass. 481, 485-486 (2008).
Judgments affirmed.