24-P-0872
Mass. App. Ct.Sep 2, 2025Background
- Christopher Ciampa suffered a lower-leg amputation in a vehicle collision; a jury found only defendant Briana Durham liable and exonerated co-defendants Jesus Landaverde and Sysco (Sysco Corp. and Sysco Boston, LLC).
- Both Ciampa and Durham moved for new trials; the trial judge denied both motions, and both appealed. The Appeals Court issued a Rule 23.0 memorandum affirming.
- Ciampa argued the trial judge improperly limited attorney-conducted voir dire questions aimed at exposing juror bias against his signaling/waving-based liability theory.
- Durham contended defense counsel committed "golden rule" misconduct (asking jurors to put themselves in a party’s position) in witness questioning and closing, and also challenged certain jury-instruction choices and the verdict for codefendants.
- The record included evidence that Durham looked right before entering the lane and did not see Ciampa, that she acknowledged responsibility to ensure the lane was safe, and that responding officers concluded Landaverde was not involved and did not cite him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial judge abused discretion by restricting attorney-conducted voir dire about signaling/waving | Ciampa: questions were needed to reveal juror bias against his central legal theory and assess ability to apply legal concepts | Judge: excluded fact‑specific/hypothetical questions that risked prejudging the case; counsel must wait for evidence | No abuse of discretion — judge reasonably excluded fact‑intensive, prejudgment questions under Rule 6 and precedent |
| Verdict for Landaverde/Sysco was against the weight of the evidence | Ciampa: evidence of Landaverde’s negligence was overwhelming; jurors must have had uncovered bias against signaling theory | Defendants: there was competing evidence (Durham didn’t see plaintiff, Durham’s admission about duty, officer’s finding Landaverde not involved) | No reversible error — jury reasonably weighed conflicting evidence; trial judge did not abuse discretion denying new trial |
| Durham’s standing to appeal judgment in favor of codefendants | Durham sought to challenge verdict for Landaverde/Sysco | Codefendants: Durham did not sue them and lacks standing to appeal their favorable verdict | Durham lacks standing to appeal judgment for co‑defendants; those claims dismissed |
| Alleged "golden rule" and related trial errors by codefendants' counsel | Durham: counsel’s witness question and closing remarks improperly asked jurors to put themselves in a party’s position and appealed to sympathy; jury instructions were legally incomplete | Defense: contested remarks were inartful or ambiguous and not a direct appeal to jurors to assume a party’s role; instructions correctly stated Massachusetts law | No prejudicial error — statements not reasonably read as golden‑rule appeals; jury instructions appropriate and did not bar consideration of Durham’s defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Dietrich, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 458 (2024) (standard of review for limitations on attorney‑conducted voir dire)
- L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169 (2014) (definition of abuse of discretion review)
- Woods v. O'Neil, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 768 (2002) (jury decides interpretation and legal significance of hand signals)
- Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 495 Mass. 238 (2025) (prosecutorial hypothetical that prejudges facts may improperly seek juror commitment)
- J. Edmund & Co. v. Rosen, 412 Mass. 572 (1992) (trial judge may order new trial if verdict against clear weight of evidence)
- Meyer v. Wagner, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 494 (2003) (review of whether jury was misled or biased when assessing weight of evidence)
- Kuwaiti Danish Computer Co. v. Digital Equip. Corp., 438 Mass. 459 (2003) (standard for appellate review of denial of new trial)
- Monize v. Frisoli, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 50 (1978) (codefendant lacks standing to appeal judgment favoring another codefendant)