Court overturns life sentence for getaway driver in 2014 Charlestown murder for which the two accused shooters were acquitted

The Supreme Judicial Court yesterday overturned Julio Baez's first-degree murder sentence, saying prosecutors failed to provide evidence that Baez knew the men who actually did gun down Ryan Morrissey on Main Street in Charlestown in 2014 were planning to shoot him.

A Suffolk Superior Court jury in 2018 convicted Baez of first-degree murder on the legal principal of "deliberate premeditation," that even if he didn't actually pull the trigger, he was as involved in planning Morrissey's death as the men who did. The same jury acquitted the two men prosecutors say were the ones who actually gunned down Morrissey, 17 at the time, and seriously injured a man standing next to him outside a convenience store on Nov. 5, 2014.

Prosecutors charged Baez was waiting around the corner in his mother's car and drove the two men away; the jury convicted him even despite acquitting the two men he allegedly drove away

In its ruling, the state's highest court said that prosecutors simply did not provide the required evidence to find Baez guilty:

We conclude that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant knew of or shared the lethal intent of the assailants and therefore reverse the defendant's convictions of murder in the first degree and armed assault with intent to murder. We also conclude that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant knew that the assailants were armed with firearms, or that he shared the assailants' intent to use those firearms to assault the victims, and thus reverse his conviction of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon causing serious injury.

Part of the prosecution case was the maneuvering Baez did after the two assailants in hoodies got into his car, parked on the one-way Salem Street, and he drove off:

Shortly after the shooting, witnesses saw the car slowly go up Salem Street, begin to turn left onto High Street, and then reverse, hitting a parked car. The car was stationary at the top of Salem Street when the assailants reached the car and entered through the rear driver's side door and the rear passenger's side door. After the assailants had entered the car, the car turned right onto High Street, going at about ten miles per hour when witnesses lost sight of it.

Not good enough, the court concluded, saying "there was no direct evidence that the defendant intended that the victims be killed."

The Commonwealth argues that the maneuvering of the car by the defendant after the shooting was nonetheless sufficient evidence to demonstrate the defendant's lethal intent. Specifically, the Commonwealth contends that the defendant began moving the car after hearing gunshots because he knew his coventurers were armed and intended to shoot the victims, and understood the gunshots were his signal to get ready to leave the area to avoid detection. This argument overstates the Commonwealth's evidence and requires the "piling of inference upon inference" to conclude that the defendant knew of and shared the assailant's lethal intent. ...

As a preliminary matter, a finding that the defendant's car was parked on Salem Street and began moving only after the shooting is itself an inference; witnesses looked out onto Salem Street after the shooting and saw the suspect vehicle driving slowly up the street, but there was no evidence introduced regarding whether the sound of gunfire prompted the movement of the car. ... Even assuming the Acura was parked on Salem Street and did not begin moving until the shooting occurred, the Commonwealth's theory requires the inference, on the basis of the car's maneuvers alone, that before hearing the gunfire, the defendant knew his coventurers were in possession of firearms, that they intended to use those firearms in a deadly attack, and that the defendant shared their intent.

Here, the evidence was not sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge before the shots were fired that the passengers were armed and intended to shoot the victims, or that the defendant shared their intent. Although the evidence of the car's maneuvering after the gunshots may have been sufficient to support a conviction of accessory after the fact, see Baxter, 489 Mass. at 511-512, the maneuvering did not, without more, "demonstrate a shared lethal intent" as would be required for a conviction of murder in the first degree

The ruling ends:

Because we conclude that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the defendant's convictions of murder in the first degree, armed assault with intent to murder, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, the judgment of conviction is reversed, the verdicts are set aside, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for entry of a required finding of not guilty.