Commonwealth v. Steven Martinez-Santana. ( 2024 )

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-1245
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
STEVEN MARTINEZ-SANTANA.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
A jury convicted the defendant of assault with intent to
rob while armed with a firearm, assault and battery with a
dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury, attempted armed
robbery while masked, and unlicensed possession of a firearm.1
On appeal, the defendant argues that the judge erred by denying
his motions for required finding of not guilty because the
Commonwealth failed to present evidence that sufficiently
1The Commonwealth entered a nolle prosequi on a fifth
charge (possession of a firearm while committing or attempting
to commit a felony).
1
corroborated the testimony of the Commonwealth's immunized
witness as required by G. L. c. 233, § 20I.2 We affirm.
1. Background. We summarize the evidence presented to the
jury in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
Commonwealth v. Fernandes, 425 Mass. 357, 358 (1997).
a. Evidence independent from immunized witness's
testimony. On February 13, 2020, two masked individuals entered
the store at a Sunoco gas station in Dedham. The taller of the
two individuals brandished a gun and demanded money from an
employee named Kadhum Al-Majedi. When Al-Majedi resisted by
pushing the gun away from him, the taller masked individual shot
him in the leg. The shooting occurred at approximately
10:40 P.M. The two masked individuals then fled the store.
This series of events between the two masked individuals and Al-
Majedi was captured on the store's surveillance cameras.
About five minutes after the masked individuals left the
store, a customer found Al-Majedi lying on the floor and called
the police. Dedham police Officer Steven Feeley responded to
the scene and immediately provided medical assistance to Al-
Majedi. Feeley removed a bullet fragment from the wound in Al-
Majedi's leg before compressing the wound. Medics then arrived
2 The defendant moved for required findings of not guilty at
the close of the Commonwealth's case and again at the close of
the evidence.
2
and transported Al-Majedi to the hospital. Police also
recovered a spent shell casing on the floor of the store.
During the investigation, detectives reviewed cell phone
tower data and call records and determined that a cell phone
subscribed to the defendant's mother was used to place a call to
a cell phone subscribed to Wesley Isenia at 10:42 P.M. on
February 13, 2020. The call transmitted through an antenna
approximately six-tenths of a mile from the Sunoco station.
b. Testimony of immunized witness. Wesley Isenia
testified at trial under a grant of immunity. The substance of
Isenia's testimony was as follows. Isenia accompanied the
defendant, with whom he was "good friends," and Franklin Dume to
the Sunoco station on the night of February 13, 2020. Upon
arriving at the station, Isenia entered alone and purchased a
beverage. When Isenia returned to the car, the defendant drove
approximately 1,000 feet away from the Sunoco and parked. The
defendant and Dume then exited the vehicle and told Isenia,
"We'll be back." Shortly thereafter, Isenia received a phone
call from the defendant wherein the defendant told Isenia to
start the car. Once the defendant and Dume got back in the car,
the defendant told Isenia that he had just shot someone.
Isenia identified himself as the individual depicted on the
surveillance video footage who entered the store and purchased a
drink approximately fifteen minutes before the two masked
3
individuals entered the store. Isenia then reviewed video
footage that depicted two masked individuals and identified the
defendant to be the taller individual who was pointing a gun at
Al-Majedi. Isenia identified Dume as the other masked
individual. The Commonwealth presented evidence that the
defendant was six feet, one inch tall, while Dume stood five
feet, five inches tall.
2. Discussion. On appeal, the defendant contends that the
judge erred in denying his motions for a required finding of not
guilty because the testimony of an immunized witness, Isenia,
was not sufficiently corroborated as required by G. L. c. 233,
§ 20I. We are not persuaded.
General Laws c. 233, § 20I, provides: "No defendant in any
criminal proceeding shall be convicted solely on the testimony
of, or the evidence produced by, a person granted immunity under
the provisions of section twenty E." The Supreme Judicial Court
has interpreted § 20I to "require that there be some evidence in
support of the testimony of an immunized witness on at least one
element of proof essential to convict the defendant."
Commonwealth v. DeBrosky, 363 Mass. 718, 730 (1973). "Thus
evidence corroborating an accomplice's testimony concerning the
commission of the crime would be sufficient under the statute,
even if there were no other evidence connecting a defendant to
the crime." Id.4
Following DeBrosky, the Supreme Judicial Court has
repeatedly reaffirmed that § 20I does not require evidence
independent from an immunized witness's testimony of the
defendant's participation in the crime. See, e.g., Commonwealth
v. Resende, 476 Mass. 141, 152 (2017) (Commonwealth's evidence
in support of immunized witness's testimony "need not connect
the defendant to the crime, but must support at least one
element of the crime"); Commonwealth v. Fernandes, 425 Mass.
357, 359 (1997) (court declined to modify DeBrosky holding by
"requir[ing] some proof of the defendant's actual participation
in the crime to corroborate the testimony of an immunized
witness" under 20I).
Here, the Commonwealth presented abundant evidence
independent of Isenia's testimony to prove the commission of the
crimes. Specifically, Isenia's testimony was corroborated by
the video recording of the two masked individuals confronting
the victim, the victim's testimony of the attempted robbery and
shooting, the ballistic evidence, and the hospital records
detailing the victim's injuries. See Resende, 476 Mass. at 152;
Commonwealth v. Turner, 371 Mass. 803, 812-813 (1977) (store
clerk's testimony, ballistic evidence, and nature of victim's
wounds corroborated immunized witnesses' accounts of crimes).
Furthermore, although the corroborating evidence need not
connect the defendant to the crime, see DeBrosky, 363 Mass. at
5
730, the evidence did so here. The police testimony,
surveillance video footage, and victim's testimony regarding the
respective heights of the masked individuals corroborated
Isenia's testimony that the defendant and Dume were the two
masked individuals who attempted to rob the victim before
shooting him. See DeBrosky, 363 Mass. at 728 (nonimmunized
witnesses' testimony concerning size of defendant corroborated
immunized witness's identification of defendant). See also
Turner, 371 Mass. at 812 (witness's testimony concerning
defendant's height corroborated immunized witnesses'
identification of defendant).
Additionally, the records showing the timing and location
of a cell phone call placed from a phone registered to the
defendant's mother to a phone registered to Isenia corroborated
Isenia's testimony that the defendant called him after leaving
the Sunoco station. See Commonwealth v. Scanlon, 373 Mass. 11,
20 (1977) (nonimmunized witnesses' testimony that victim
received telephone call corroborated immunized witness'
testimony that defendant made call to victim).
Thus, we find the Commonwealth presented sufficient
corroborating evidence to meet the requirements under G. L.
c. 233, § 20I, and, therefore, the trial court did not err by
6
denying the defendant's motions for required finding of not
guilty.
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Vuono, Rubin &
Smyth, JJ.3),
Clerk
Entered: October 17, 2024.
3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
7