Bulgary Charge in Norwood Case Overturned by State Supreme Court

NORWOOD, MA — A split court has ruled that walking on a railroad track and possessing tools is not enough to justify a conviction for possession of burglarious instruments.

The state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 Monday to reverse convictions against John F. Squires, III, and Steven E. Angier, who were arrested in 2013.

Around 11 p.m. on Feb. 3, 2013, a plainclothes officer observed a vehicle enter a shopping center. After following footprints the snow to the railroad tracks need the Norwood Center train station, the officer came upon Squires and Angier. The two told the officer that they were out for a stroll, but a search of Angier’s backpack turned up a large screwdriver, black gloves, and a small flashlight. A second set of gloves was found on Angier and a third pair, along with a small sledgehammer. During the booking process, a map with an "L"-shaped space with the words "Going in" handwritten on the bottom next to an arrow pointing to markings that could represent an entrance and more arrows that to an area marked with five "X" marks was found by police.

The two were found guilty and sentenced to 2.5 years in prison and a $100 fine, but in separate appeals, the defendants argued that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain the burglarious implements charge, something that the majority of supreme judges agreed with.

“We do not doubt that the discovery of the defendants on the railroad tracks late at night in freezing weather was suspicious conduct that warranted the threshold inquiry by the police. But this suspicious conduct, without more, did not prove an intent to use the tools in their possession for a burglarious purpose,” Justice Geraldine Hines wrote.

The ruling concluded that the state did not show evidence that the defendants veered off the tracks to rob a business, nor did the state connect the to any nearby buildings or rooms.

“The Commonwealth failed to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all of the elements of possession of burglarious instruments, and thus the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendants' convictions Because of our conclusion, we need not address the defendants' other claims of error on the merits. With respect to the defendants' convictions of possession of burglarious instruments, the judgments are reversed, the verdicts are set aside, and judgments shall be entered for the defendants,” Hines wrote.

In the dissenting brief, Frank M. Gaziano wrote that the explanation from the two that they were just out for a stroll was an implausible one.

“A commonsense view of the evidence, leads to the conclusion that the crudely drawn map depicts a building, and the defendants intended to enter that structure at a certain location (i.e., the point marked "Going in") and to follow the path designated by the arrows to the "X" marks. Fact finders are not "required to divorce themselves of common sense, but rather should apply to facts which they find proven such reasonable inferences as are justified in light of their experience as to the natural inclinations of human beings," Gaziano wrote.

It was noted in the decision that the court reviewed the case despite the fact that Angier has died, breaking from the precedent of not reviewing the appeals of dead people.

Below is the full ruling:

Case by DanLibon on Scribd

Image via Shutterstock