Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court considers whether possession, gloves and coconspirator statements support receiving-stolen-vehicle conviction in Santana
Summary
In Commonwealth v. Santana (24P599), defense counsel said possession of a stolen truck while wearing gloves and equivocal statements after arrest do not prove knowing receipt; prosecutors said the defendant's role in a larger criminal operation, the gloves, and in-van statements support conviction
The Appeals Court panel of Justices William Mead, Niman and Walsh heard argument in Commonwealth v. Santana (24P599) on whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a conviction for receiving a stolen motor vehicle and whether certain post-incident statements were admissible as coconspirator statements or improperly admitted narrative.
Defense counsel Dana Goldblatt argued the government’s proof was insufficient and invoked Commonwealth v. Hunt, saying possession of a stolen vehicle alone does not establish knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. Goldblatt described the case as a "prototypical" instance where someone was found driving a vehicle later described as stolen and where many of the factors…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
