Commonwealth v. Carey
463 Mass. 378
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Defendant convicted in Superior Court of attempted murder, armed home invasion, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and assault and battery following an evening assault in Hamilton (June 6, 2007).
- Defense contended the assault was part of a consensual sexual encounter; argued Lawrence v. Texas requires consent as a defense to certain charges.
- Judge instructed jurors that consent is immaterial to assault with a dangerous weapon and to armed home invasion; no defense instruction given for consent.
- Forensic evidence included DNA on a necktie and computer materials depicting strangulation; eight photos, a ninety-second video, an article, and testimony about files and searches were admitted.
- Defense admitted the act occurred but claimed it was consensual; defendant testified to a sexual context and lack of intent to harm.
- Appeals Court affirmed; Supreme Judicial Court granted review to address consent instruction and admission of computer materials and video.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lawrence requires consent as a defense to the charges. | Carey argues Lawrence invalidates Appleby’s denial of consent. | Carey contends consent should be a defense to armed home invasion and assault with a dangerous weapon. | Consent not a defense; instructions upheld. |
| Whether admission of computer materials and video was proper. | Carey asserts materials show motive/intent and are highly probative. | Carey claims prejudicial and improper due to inflammatory content. | Materials admissible; video viewing error acknowledged but not reversible. |
| Whether the trial judge abused discretion by not viewing the video before ruling on admissibility. | Carey argues absence of personal viewing impaired balancing of probative value and prejudice. | Carey contends the judge erred by not watching the video before ruling. | Abuse acknowledged; but no reversal on standard of review; video probative outweighs prejudicial risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (consent in private sexual activity protected absent injury)
- Commonwealth v. Mahar, 430 Mass. 643 (Mass. 2000) (consent to enter not a defense unless occupant aware of weapon)
- Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296 (Mass. 1980) (consent cannot excuse assault with dangerous weapon in sexual context)
- Commonwealth v. Farrell, 322 Mass. 606 (Mass. 1948) (consent to violent injury generally immaterial)
- Commonwealth v. Carey, 79 Mass. App. Ct. 587 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011) (appeals panel discussed consent and evidentiary issues)
- United States v. Curtin, 489 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2007) (graphic material; relevance vs. prejudice; weighing discretion)
- United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2011) (need to view inflammatory materials to assess prejudice)