COMMONWEALTH vs. LOUANN WRIGHT.

MALDONADO, J. A complaint was brought against the defendant in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court (Central Division) for one count of larceny over $250 by a single scheme, G. L. c. 266, § 30, and four counts of public assistance fraud, G. L. c. 18, § 5B. These charge the defendant with attesting to false information on public benefits applications she submitted to the Department of Transitional Assistance (department), which resulted, according to the Commonwealth, in the department's distribution to her of unwarranted benefits.

Page 83

The defendant resides in Somerville and applied for benefits at the department satellite office located in Revere. Neither the defendant's Somerville residence nor the department's Revere satellite office is in the city of Boston. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss in the Central Division for lack of venue and, following an evidentiary hearing, a judge allowed the defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint. The Commonwealth's appeal followed. Concluding that venue properly lies in Boston, where the department "used" the defendant's purported false statements to calculate her public assistance award, we reverse.

Background. We summarize the uncontroverted facts as alleged in the complaint and presented at the evidentiary hearing. [Note 2] In the application for complaint, the Commonwealth's investigator reported that the defendant applied for and recertified eligibility for public benefits on at least five separate occasions between 2006 and 2011. [Note 3] She submitted these forms at a department satellite office located in Revere.

The defendant listed between three and six household members on these forms but did not include her husband. [Note 4] Nor did she account for his income. From 2006 to 2011 -- the relevant time

Page 84

frame -- the defendant also filed joint tax returns with her husband in which they reported sharing the same Somerville address the defendant provided in her department submissions. The tax returns for these years also indicate that the husband earned an income of between $47,000 and $61,000, depending on the tax year, through his employment with a towing company. In addition, the husband was enrolled with a private health care insurer for at least five of the six relevant years. In 2012, the Commonwealth's investigator interviewed the defendant in Boston. During that interview, the defendant admitted to living with her husband in Somerville and confirmed his employment with the tow company.

Sarah Stuart, an assistant director at the department, testified that the department's central office, which "oversees and administers all of the [benefits] programs," is located at 600 Washington Street in Boston. The department has satellite offices Statewide, including the one the defendant visited in Revere. However, no benefit determinations are made at these outlying offices. These offices are set up to accept applications for the convenience of the applicants, but eligibility determinations are made via a computerized system called "Beacon," which is located at the department's central office on Washington Street in Boston. Based, in part, on an applicant's reported household size and income, Beacon calculates the measure of the applicant's benefits entitlement. [Note 5]

Once Beacon determines the applicant's benefits award, the applicant is issued an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card from the satellite office. The applicant is then able to employ the EBT card to make qualifying purchases. No evidence was presented at the hearing as to the location or locations where the EBT card that issued to the defendant was used.

Discussion. In its argument, the Commonwealth distinguishes venue for the larceny count from that for the public assistance fraud charges. It contends that venue for the larceny charge is governed by G. L. c. 277, § 59, while venue for a public assistance fraud charge is derived from the common law, and, further, that in each instance venue properly lies in Boston for the conduct charged here. We separately consider the appropriateness of venue in Boston for the larceny count and the public assistance

Page 85

fraud charges. [Note 6]

1. Larceny charge venue. General Laws c. 277, § 59, applies to the crime of larceny when that larceny is accomplished by means of a false pretense. [Note 7] Commonwealth v. Kiernan, 348 Mass. 29, 53-54 & n.20 (1964), cert. denied sub nom. Gordon v. Massachusetts, 380 U.S. 913 (1965). Section 59 establishes venue for larceny by false pretenses as follows:

"The crime of obtaining money or a personal chattel by a false pretence . . . may be alleged to have been committed, and may be prosecuted and punished, in any county where the false pretence was made, written or used, or in or through which any of the property obtained was carried, sent, transported or received by the defendant."

The defendant contends that the phrase "by the defendant" appearing at the end of the statute modifies all the verbs preceding it, conferring venue in only those locales where she is alleged

Page 86

to have engaged in the enumerated acts. In other words, she asserts venue exists in only those places where she has "made, written or used" the alleged false pretenses and in those counties in or through which she has "carried, sent, transported or received" the falsely obtained property. The plain reading of the statute dictates otherwise, and leads us to conclude venue is proper where either party "used" the false pretense. [Note 8]

"As with all matters of statutory interpretation, we look first to the plain meaning of the statutory language." Commonwealth v. Gopaul, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 685, 687 (2014), quoting from Commonwealth v. Mogelinski, 466 Mass. 627, 633 (2013). "[W]here the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is conclusive as to legislative intent." Commonwealth v. Gopaul, supra, quoting from Thurdin v. SEI Boston, LLC, 452 Mass. 436, 444 (2008). In interpreting legislation, we employ familiar canons of statutory and grammatical interpretation. See Commonwealth v. Perella, 464 Mass. 274, 281 (2013).

The modifying clause, "by the defendant" (relied upon by the defendant here), appears after the word "received" in the second clause of § 59 pertaining to the falsely obtained property. [Note 9] The phrase "by the defendant" does not appear at the end of the first clause pertaining to the allegedly false statement. The omission of the modifier after the first clause is the first indication that the Legislature did not intend for it to modify any of the verbs in the first clause. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Perella, supra at 278, quoting from Commonwealth v. Galvin, 388 Mass. 326, 330 (1983) ("[W]here the Legislature has employed specific language in one paragraph, but not in another, the language should not be implied where it is not present"). Cf. Passatempo v. McMenimen, 461 Mass. 279, 297-298 (2012) (language of second prong for

Page 87

bringing action under G. L. c. 93A, § 9[1], does not limit the first prong).

Furthermore, as a general rule of statutory and grammatical construction, a modifying clause is said to modify only that which immediately precedes it -- here, the word "received." See Taylor v. Burke, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 77, 81 (2007), quoting from Hopkins v. Hopkins, 287 Mass. 542, 547 (1934) ("The last antecedent rule is a 'general rule of statutory as well as grammatical construction that a modifying clause is confined to the last antecedent unless there is something in the subject matter or dominant purpose which requires a different interpretation'"). This rule of statutory and grammatical construction is a further indication of the Legislature's intent to have the phrase "by the defendant" modify only the last antecedent verb "received."

Lastly, the defendant's cramped view of § 59 is inconsistent with the Legislature's intent to retain it as a "broad venue section [for the crime of larceny by false pretenses] after having enacted, in effect, a limited venue statute to govern [other forms of larceny]." Commonwealth v. Kiernan, 348 Mass. at 53 n.20. Accordingly, we conclude § 59 clearly and unambiguously conferred venue in this matter in Boston -- the location of the department's central office, where the department "used" the defendant's purported false statements to calculate the EBT benefits it awarded her. Compare Commonwealth v. Price, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 280, 282-283 (2008) (where telephone calls comprising false pretenses originated in Suffolk County and were placed to victims in Norfolk County, resulting in their delivery of money to the defendant in Boston, venue was proper in Norfolk County). This location falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Central Division, and we therefore conclude the larceny complaint was properly brought there. G. L. c. 218, § 1. [Note 10]

2. Public assistance fraud charge venue. Because no venue statute exists for the crime of public assistance fraud, G. L. c. 18, § 5B, "[t]he venue question . . . is one of common law within any limitation that art. 13 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights] may impose." [Note 11] Commonwealth v. Brogan, 415 Mass. 169, 173 (1993). Article 13 of the Massachusetts Declaration of

Page 88

Rights provides, "In criminal prosecutions, the verification of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is one of the greatest securities of the life, liberty, and property of the citizen." The word "vicinity" does not mean "county," and the Commonwealth is not constitutionally prohibited from trying a defendant in a county other than the county in which the crime was alleged to have been committed. Commonwealth v. Parker, 2 Pick. 550, 553 (1824).

"One concept underlying art. 13 is that fairness to a defendant normally requires that the defendant not be transported far away for trial but rather be tried where there is access to witnesses and evidence for the defense." Commonwealth v. Brogan, supra at 174. "Today, more convenient means of communication and transportation than existed in 1780 makes geographically less narrow art. 13's mandate of fairness." Ibid. Given the geographic proximity of Somerville (where the EBT card was delivered to the defendant) and Revere (where she tendered the application and recertification forms) to Boston (where the complaints were brought) and the relative ease of transportation between these locations, we see nothing substantially unfair about the defendant's prosecution in Boston for a crime regarding statements she supplied in Revere pertaining to a household she maintained in Somerville. See ibid. ("We think it is neither mischievous nor unjust to try a person in Cambridge for contempt of a Middlesex Superior Court order committed in the abutting city of Boston or in the adjacent town of Brookline"). Therefore, we conclude venue for the public assistance charge also properly lay in the Central Division.

Conclusion. The order dismissing the complaint is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court for further proceedings. So ordered.