Commonwealth v. Christie
89 Mass. App. Ct. 665
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant (openly gay) was convicted of multiple counts: three statutory rapes, one indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, and one count of dissemination of matter harmful to a minor; Commonwealth conceded one statutory-rape count lacked evidence and must be dismissed.
- Victim Daniel (age 12 in 2005) testified to multiple sexual acts by defendant: two occasions of oral sex, one incident where Daniel briefly penetrated defendant anally, and insertion of a sex toy; Daniel also said defendant played DVDs (one showing male/female sex, one showing two men) and purchased a sex toy.
- Police executed a warrant in 2007 at defendant’s (new) residence and seized several VHS tapes: four bedroom tapes (some depicting adult male homosexual sexual acts) and one basement tape depicting adult males using a sex toy. None of these VHS tapes were the DVDs allegedly shown to Daniel.
- Trial judge admitted jurors’ descriptions of the adult same-sex videotapes (but excluded heterosexual tapes) for limited purposes: to show defendant’s sexual interest/state of mind re: Daniel and manner/means of the assaults; judge gave limiting instructions and suggested testimony of contents rather than playing tapes.
- Prosecutor emphasized the tapes in closing; the court of appeals held that admitting descriptions of generic adult same-sex pornography to prove sexual interest in an underage boy (and related manner/means/grooming in this record) was improper and unfairly prejudicial, requiring reversal of all convictions except the dissemination conviction (which jurors were told the tapes were not admitted to prove).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Christie’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of descriptions of lawfully possessed adult same-sex videotapes to show defendant's sexual interest in the child victim | Tapes corroborate sexual interest/state of mind and manner/means; relevant to grooming and to similarity of acts | Possession of adult same-sex pornography is not probative of sexual interest in underage boys and is unfairly prejudicial (propensity/stereotype risk) | Reversed: descriptions of generic adult same-sex pornography were irrelevant to sexual interest in the child and unfairly prejudicial; error required reversal of rape and indecent-assault convictions (not dissemination) |
| Use of tapes to show manner and means (similarity of acts) | Images depicted sex acts like those alleged; thus probative of how assaults occurred | Acts depicted were generic adult conduct; lacking distinctive similarity, probative value is too attenuated and prejudicial | Reversed for admission on this ground as well; generic depictions not admissible to prove manner/means absent distinctive similarity |
| Admissibility of tape showing use of a sex toy (basement tape) for specific-act corroboration | Tape shows use of a sex toy similar to alleged act; thus probative of defendant’s interest/means | No record evidence that use of such a sex toy is sufficiently distinctive or that defendant showed that tape to victim; probative value unproven | Not decided on merits; court requires Commonwealth to show distinctiveness and probative link at any retrial before admission |
| Sufficiency of evidence for fourth statutory-rape count | Prosecutor argued three oral-sex occasions existed | Defendant argued only two supported by evidence | Commonwealth conceded, and court ordered that conviction reversed and indictment dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 757 (adult pornography admissible with other specific indicia linking it to child interest)
- Commonwealth v. Baran, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 256 (defendant's homosexuality irrelevant to showing sexual interest in children)
- Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (standard for excluding unfairly prejudicial evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Carey, 463 Mass. 378 (similarity of distinctive depictions can make otherwise adult sexual material probative)
- Commonwealth v. Halsey, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 200 (adult pornography sometimes admissible to corroborate victim’s testimony that pornography was shown)
- United States v. Delgado-Marrero, 744 F.3d 167 (evidence of homosexuality can be highly prejudicial)
- State v. Ellis, 820 S.W.2d 699 (possession of adult same-sex material does not establish propensity to molest boys)