68 N.E.3d 644
Mass. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Donna Beaulieu was convicted by a jury of assault and battery on her teenage daughter based on the daughter's trial testimony describing repeated physical abuse and bruising; photographs and testimony from school staff and a detective corroborated injury and reporting.
- About one week after conviction the victim (the daughter), then in DCF placement, sent a letter to defense counsel recanting her trial testimony and later testified at a motion-for-new-trial hearing that she had lied at trial and that her injuries resulted from an unrelated school altercation.
- At an initial hearing, the judge sharply warned the victim about possible perjury consequences and said he would research remedies (including mentioning incarceration), then delayed decision to give parties time to consider the recantation.
- After an evidentiary hearing where the victim recanted under oath, the judge denied the motion for a new trial, finding the trial testimony more credible and the recantation inconsistent with other evidence and vulnerable to impeachment.
- On direct appeal the defendant challenged (1) the denial of the motion for a new trial (arguing judicial misconduct/berating the witness), (2) admission of prior uncharged bad acts, (3) denial of a required-finding motion for insufficient identification, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to prior-act evidence and for calling a police witness.
- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying the new-trial motion or in the judge’s comments; prior-act evidence was admissible for context; identification evidence was sufficient; and ineffective-assistance claims were not shown on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Beaulieu) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth / Court Response) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge abused discretion/should recuse for "berating" and threatening victim at new-trial hearing | Judge’s admonitions chilled recantation, showed partiality, and required recusal | Judge may warn witnesses about perjury; warnings did not disqualify him; no objection below; victim still testified | Denied — no abuse of discretion; no recusal required |
| Whether the judge erred in denying motion for new trial based on recantation | Recantation undermines trial verdict and warrants new trial | Motion judge heard trial and hearing evidence and found recantation inconsistent and unreliable | Denied — judge properly exercised discretion; trial testimony upheld |
| Admissibility of prior uncharged acts of abuse | Prior-act evidence was prejudicial and should have been excluded | Prior acts admitted to show history, context, pattern, and course of conduct | Admissible — within trial judge’s discretion |
| Sufficiency of identification / required finding of not guilty | Insufficient identification of defendant as the offender | Victim’s testimony, essay naming mother, residence evidence collectively identified defendant | Denied — evidence sufficient; motion properly denied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to object to prior-act evidence and should not have called detective | Tactical choices plausible; calling detective allowed impeachment; record lacks proof counsel’s conduct was objectively unreasonable | Denied — ineffective assistance not shown on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spray, 467 Mass. 456 (deference to motion judge who also was trial judge)
- Commonwealth v. Rebello, 450 Mass. 118 (recantation must cast doubt on truthfulness of trial testimony to warrant new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 458 Mass. 405 (recanted testimony may be "relatively worthless" if vulnerable to impeachment)
- Commonwealth v. Britto, 433 Mass. 596 (judge may remind witnesses of duty to tell the truth)
- Commonwealth v. Montez, 450 Mass. 736 (admission of prior uncharged acts rests in trial judge’s discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Blackmer, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 474 (identity may be proven by cumulative testimony and surrounding details)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)