Commonwealth v. Dominick Cantero.

── Commonwealth v. Dominick Cantero. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General 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-787 COMMONWEALTH vs. DOMINICK CANTERO. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 After a jury-waived trial, the defendant was convicted of negligent operation of a motor vehicle in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24 (2) (a). On appeal, he claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, the judge improperly admitted evidence of the victim's injuries, the prosecutor's closing argument improperly appealed to sympathy, and that the judge improperly instructed himself on the law. We affirm. 1. Sufficiency of the evidence. The defendant claims there was insufficient evidence that he operated his car in a negligent or reckless manner such that the lives or safety of the public were endangered. We disagree.  "When analyzing whether the record evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court is not required to 'ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Commonwealth v. Hartnett, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 467, 475 (2008), quoting Commonwealth v. Velasquez, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 147, 152 (1999). Nor are we obligated to "reread the record from a [defendant]'s perspective." Commonwealth v. Duncan, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 150, 152 (2008), quoting Palmariello v. Superintendent of M.C.I. Norfolk, 873 F.2d 491, 493 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 865 (1989). Rather, the relevant "question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). When evaluating sufficiency, the evidence must be reviewed with specific reference to the substantive elements of the offense. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 324 n.16; Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677–678. To convict a defendant of negligent operation, "the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant (1) operated a motor vehicle, (2) on a public way, and (3) negligently, so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered." 2 Commonwealth v. Teixeira, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 367, 369 (2019). The defendant challenges only the third element. In the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the fact finder was entitled to conclude that even though it was evening, the defendant was capable of seeing the illuminated victim in the ice-free roadway. The dashcam video depicts the victim crossing the road, dropping a bag, and bending over to retrieve it prior to being struck by the defendant's car. The video also shows the defendant's headlights illuminating the victim for at least one second prior to impact. Within one second after impact, the defendant is able to stop his car. The fact finder was also entitled t