102 N.E.3d 429
Mass. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Christopher Brunet convicted after jury trial of multiple sex offenses against a child (aggravated rape of a child; assault with intent to rape a child; indecent assault and battery of a child under 14; enticement of a child under 16; dissemination of matter harmful to a minor).
- Victim (age 9) began living with defendant; defendant repeatedly rubbed his penis on her genital area on mornings while caring for her; one attempt at penetration; he threatened she would lose access to cancer treatment if she disclosed.
- Victim disclosed after experiencing severe genital pain during a family event; mother took her to MetroWest Hospital where Dr. Mahoney observed swelling, redness, and abraded genital skin; follow-up exam six days later by Dr. Schwartz showed healing superficial abrasions.
- At trial, defense sought to probe mother’s potential bias (prior DCF involvement) and challenged expert testimony as impermissibly vouching for the victim’s credibility.
- Court admitted expert testimony from Drs. Mahoney and Schwartz as proper medical/explanatory testimony; limited some cross-examination about remote, unsupported DCF-related bias; defendant’s ineffective-assistance claim based on redaction of medical records was rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restriction on cross-examining witness bias | Prosecution: judge reasonably limited speculative inquiry into remote DCF matters | Brunet: mother had motive to fabricate to avoid losing custody; needed broad cross‑examination | Trial court did not abuse discretion; defense failed to show plausible, fact‑based bias link |
| Expert testimony vouching for complainant | Prosecution: experts gave admissible medical/general behavioral testimony, not credibility opinions | Brunet: experts implicitly vouched for victim, impermissibly bolstering credibility | Admission proper: testimony was generalized/medical, not direct credibility opinions or implicit vouching |
| Qualification and opinion testimony of treating physician | Prosecution: Dr. Mahoney qualified to give medical significance of injuries | Brunet: challenged scope/qualification for opinion testimony | No error: court reasonably found sufficient qualifications and allowed medical opinion evidence |
| Ineffective assistance; leading questions; closing argument | Prosecution: redaction was proper; leading questions appropriate with child witness; closing fair | Brunet: counsel’s inadvertent redaction prejudiced defense; leading questions and prosecutor misstatements affected fairness | Ineffective assistance not shown (redaction would have been inadmissible anyway); no abuse in leading-question rulings; closing argument not improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Avalos, 454 Mass. 1 (cross-examination for bias requires at least a possibility of bias)
- Commonwealth v. Magadini, 474 Mass. 593 (trial judge has broad discretion to restrict cross-examination for bias)
- Commonwealth v. Quinn, 469 Mass. 641 (experts may not opine on witness credibility or implicitly vouch for complainant)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 289 (expert testimony on physical signs of abuse is admissible; may state consistency with penetration)
- Commonwealth v. Morris, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 427 (standard for admissibility and scope of expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (standard for ineffective assistance claim)
- Commonwealth v. Cole, 473 Mass. 317 (medical records admissibility under G. L. c. 233, § 79)
- Commonwealth v. Urrea, 443 Mass. 530 (prosecutor may quote a witness’s version of events in closing when supported by testimony)
Judgment affirmed.