Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Commonwealth v. David Jones.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-P-0082

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (28.4K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

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

25-P-82

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

DAVID JONES.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After a jury trial in Brockton District Court, the

defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the

influence of liquor (third offense), G. L. c. 90,

§ 24 (1) (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence and raises two issues arising from

the loss or destruction of the video recording of his booking

following his arrest. The defendant contends that the booking

video was exculpatory because it demonstrated he was not

intoxicated, so it was error to deny his motions to dismiss and

to exclude evidence based on the lost or destroyed evidence. We

affirm.
1. The motion to dismiss. "A defendant who seeks relief

from the loss or destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence

has the initial burden . . . to establish a reasonable

possibility, based on concrete evidence rather than a fertile

imagination, that access to the [evidence] would have produced

evidence favorable to his cause" (quotations and citation

omitted). Commonwealth v. Kee, 449 Mass. 550, 554 (2007).

"That is, the defendant must establish a reasonable possibility

that the lost or destroyed evidence was in fact exculpatory."

Id.

"If a defendant meets this burden, the court proceeds to a

balancing test and 'weigh[s] the culpability of the

Commonwealth, the materiality of the evidence and the potential

prejudice to the defendant.'" Kee, 449 Mass. at 554, quoting

Commonwealth v. Willie, 400 Mass. 427, 432 (1987). "[T]he

Commonwealth is considered culpable if the evidence has been

lost or destroyed through its inadvertence or negligence." Kee,

supra at 554. "Evidence is considered material in this context

if, 'in considering the entire record, it creates a reasonable

doubt as to the defendant's guilt that would not otherwise

exist.'" Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Otsuki, 411 Mass. 218,

231 (1991).

2
"In reviewing the denial of a motion based on the

Commonwealth's loss of allegedly exculpatory evidence, we do not

disturb the judge's decision absent a clear abuse of

discretion." Kee, 449 Mass. at 554.

There is no dispute that the Commonwealth lost or destroyed

the booking video through its inadvertence or negligence. The

Commonwealth was "culpable," in the argot of the test. We move,

then, to considering whether the evidence was material -- that

is, whether in the context of the "entire record, it create[d] a

reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt that would not

otherwise exist." Kee, 449 Mass. at 554.

This is where the defendant's effort flounders. The

question before us is whether the missing evidence "create[d] a

reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt that would not

otherwise exist" (emphasis added). Kee, 449 Mass. at 554. At

the motion hearing, the arresting officer (who also testified at

trial) testified in detail about the booking process, including

describing how the defendant walked approximately ten feet to be

photographed and removed his shoes and jewelry. On cross-

examination, the officer testified that he noticed no "cues of

impairment" during this process and agreed that the booking

video would have captured what he had described. To be sure,

the video would have been another lens into the booking process.

3
But it would have been consistent with the arresting officer's

testimony, and therefore would not "create[] a reasonable doubt

as to the defendant's guilt that would not otherwise exist."

Id. We discern no abuse of discretion in the motion judge's

denial of the motion to dismiss.

1. The motion in limine. We are similarly unpersuaded by

the defendant's retread of this argument as an appeal from the

denial of his motion in limine. We agree that this issue was

preserved for appeal, but find the substance lacking; other than

citing Kee again, the defendant musters no cases in support of

his assertion that the trial judge's refusal to exclude the

arresting officer's testimony as a remedy for the lost or

destroyed booking video was an abuse of his discretion.

Instead, the defendant reiterates that he was prejudiced because

he was denied the opportunity to present exculpatory evidence to

the jury. But the trial judge allowed the defendant ample

opportunity to argue about the consequences of the lost video:

(1) the defendant in his opening encouraged the jury to hold the

Commonwealth's "incompetence" for losing the video against it,

(2) the defendant cross-examined the arresting officer about the

defendant's ability to perform the necessary tasks at booking as

well as what the booking video would have shown, and (3) the

defendant was permitted to argue in his closing that the absence

4
of the booking video demonstrated his innocence. The defendant

was not prejudiced by the trial judge's denial of his motion in

limine, see Commonwealth v. Meas, 467 Mass. 434, 449 (2014) (no

prejudice from lost video evidence where defendant was allowed

to cross-examine testifying police officers to exploit lost

evidence), and we discern no abuse of discretion, see Kee, 449

Mass. at 557-558.

1. The motion for a required finding. "In reviewing a

denial of a motion for a required finding of not guilty, our

inquiry is whether the evidence, viewed in the light most

favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to satisfy a

rational trier of fact that the essential elements of the crime

have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v.

Vazquez, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 622, 626 (2007). "In satisfying that

test, the Commonwealth may rely on reasonable inferences drawn

from circumstantial evidence." Id., quoting Commonwealth v.

Degro, 432 Mass. 319, 325 (2000).

The jury heard that the defendant drove out of a parking

lot, onto a public road, and into the side of the victim's car

as she moved forward from a red traffic light. It was

midafternoon on a warm December day. Although our record does

not contain photographs of the cars after the collision, six

such photographs were admitted in evidence and were available to

5
the jury. The arresting officer described the defendant's eyes

as "glassy and bloodshot," said his speech was "slurred," and

described "an odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from his

breath as he spoke." The defendant "continually had to step off

to the side with one foot in order to maintain balance" as he

stood and spoke to the officer at the scene. The defendant

admitted to having one alcoholic drink earlier. Asked to recite

the alphabet, he began before the officer fully described his

request, then paused three times during his recitation. Asked

to count down from seventy, he began at seventy-five. When the

defendant stepped out of the police cruiser at the station, the

cruiser smelled like an alcoholic beverage. Taken together,

viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, this

evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Singh,
Hershfang & Wood, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: March 24, 2026.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

6