43 N.E.3d 340
Mass. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant John V. Carvalho and a victim (a tenant) had repeated hostile encounters after the defendant's son broke into the victim's storage unit; the son was arrested.
- The victim obtained a harassment prevention order against the defendant.
- After the order, the defendant made statements to the victim urging her to drop the order and, at a courthouse, stared at her and told her she had to drop the no-contact order.
- Defendant was tried in District Court and convicted of two counts of intimidation of a witness (G. L. c. 268, § 13B) and one count of violating a harassment prevention order (G. L. c. 258E, § 9); acquitted on some related counts.
- On appeal, defendant challenged: (1) the trial judge’s refusal to allow a peremptory strike against the only seated minority juror (judge required a neutral explanation and struck the challenge for insufficiency); and (2) the judge’s refusal to ask venire members a specific voir dire question about experience with restraining/harassment orders.
- The Appeals Court also reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to support the two witness-intimidation convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of judge requiring explanation for peremptory strike of sole minority juror | Commonwealth: judge properly required explanation once pattern-of-one was implicated; presumption of propriety rebutted | Carvalho: first strike, and race not an issue because defendant and victim shared race; explanation not required | Judge acted within discretion; defense’s generic reasons were insufficient; strike properly disallowed and juror reseated |
| Sufficiency of defense counsel’s stated reason for peremptory challenge | Commonwealth: proffered reason must be clear, specific, personal to juror, and genuine | Carvalho: counsel said juror’s experience made her unfair and client wanted to strike; that sufficed | Explanation was too generic and did not meet required standard; judge correctly demanded a better reason |
| Refusal to ask a special voir dire question about restraining/harassment orders | Commonwealth: confidential juror questionnaire and individualized follow-up sufficed; no showing jurors were biased | Carvalho: sought explicit venire question to uncover bias from experience with orders | Judge’s refusal was not an abuse of discretion; questionnaire answers and follow-up were adequate |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting witness-intimidation convictions | Commonwealth: context and surrounding circumstances supported implied threats; victim perceived threats and obtained protection order | Carvalho: statements were not express or implied threats; at most ambiguous comments | Viewing evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth, a rational jury could find implied threats beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461 (discusses limits on peremptory challenges and racial discrimination)
- Commonwealth v. Prunty, 462 Mass. 295 (requires adequate, genuine neutral explanation for peremptory challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Issa, 466 Mass. 1 (pattern-of-one doctrine; prima facie showing may be established by single strike of sole group member)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 409 Mass. 461 (burden shifts to challenger to provide neutral explanation)
- Commonwealth v. Garrey, 436 Mass. 422 (judge may require explanation early to prevent group exclusion)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Hrycenko v. Commonwealth, 459 Mass. 503 (intimidation statute elements; words need not be explicitly threatening)
- Commonwealth v. Pagels, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 607 (context and circumstances inform whether words are threatening)
- Commonwealth v. Sholley, 432 Mass. 721 (jury may consider surrounding circumstances when assessing threats)