Commonwealth v. Coates
89 Mass. App. Ct. 728
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Ryan Coates lived with the victim A.E. and her mother, acted as a father figure, helped with toilet training, babysat, and moved out after A.E. reported abuse.
- A.E., age five at trial, testified that between ages two and four Coates repeatedly "massaged" her anus with his penis while alone with her; she also described seeing a video on the household computer of a naked man "massaging" a woman and then the defendant doing the same to her.
- A.E. reported the abuse to her mother when she was four; mother removed A.E. from the home and turned the household laptop over to police.
- Forensic exam of the laptop recovered ~1,400 image files and 19 videos with many titles implying anal sex and incest/stepfather–stepdaughter themes; investigators recovered typed Internet search terms including "Tiny daughter anal."
- Dr. Fabian Saleh examined Coates and would have testified he did not fit a pedophile profile; the trial judge excluded profile evidence as inadmissible.
- Jury convicted Coates of three counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 and one count of disseminating matter harmful to a minor; convictions were appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Coates's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity evidence | Circumstantial facts (living with victim, babysitting, participating in toilet training, moving out after disclosure, matching facts about incidents) sufficiently identify Coates as assailant | A.E. did not identify Coates in court and had not seen him in a year; name-only identification is insufficient | Evidence viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth was sufficient for a rational jury to find identity beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction upheld |
| Exclusion of defendant's profile expert testimony | Profile evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial; expert profiling cannot prove who did the past act | Profile evidence would show Coates does not fit characteristics of a pedophile and is admissible like character/psychiatric evidence | Trial judge did not abuse discretion: criminal-profile testimony is categorically inadmissible as substantive evidence and the proffer lacked the required scientific foundation |
| Admission of pornographic file titles and internet searches | Titles/searches are relevant to show defendant's sexual interest in stepfather/stepdaughter and anal themes, corroborating A.E. and supporting dissemination charge | Titles/searches were inflammatory, excessive, and more prejudicial than probative | Admission of numerous titles and search terms was within discretion; probative value (quantity/themes, corroboration) outweighed prejudice; no miscarriage of justice |
| Ineffective assistance (preserved in part) | N/A | Counsel ineffective for not objecting to identity evidence and other items | Appellate opinion did not find reversible error; where counsel failed to object to profile testimony, expert nonetheless repeated favorable conclusions on cross and in closing, giving defendant more than law permits; no reversal on ineffective assistance asserted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Day, 409 Mass. 719 (profile evidence is inadmissible as substantive proof)
- Commonwealth v. Federico, 425 Mass. 844 (expert may not testify as to typical attributes of child-abuse perpetrators)
- Commonwealth v. Koney, 421 Mass. 295 (prosecution must prove the accused is the same person named by complainant)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Caraballo, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 536 (criminal profile evidence does not prove defendant committed the charged crime)