102 N.E.3d 1001
Mass. App. Ct.2018Background
- Walter Crayton was indicted on two counts of possession of child pornography; charged as a subsequent offender which exposed him to a mandatory-minimum five-year term and, as treated under prior precedent, a potential life-term exposure for purposes of Rule 20 peremptory entitlements.
- Original convictions were vacated by the SJC in Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (2014), which among other things announced a new rule limiting admission of certain in-court identifications; a retrial was ordered.
- At the 2015 retrial (bifurcated), the trial judge allotted six peremptory challenges to each side for the first phase (14 jurors: 12 jurors + 2 alternates) instead of the 14 peremptories the defendant requested under Mass. R. Crim. P. 20.
- Defense counsel exhausted the six challenges and sought additional peremptories to remove three specific jurors (minister hesitant about viewing exhibits; librarian employed at a university/library; juror with a police-officer brother). The judge denied extra challenges and two of those jurors remained on the panel.
- After conviction on retrial, the judge sentenced Crayton to 5–8 years (second indictment later dismissed as duplicative); defendant appealed claiming error in peremptory allotment, improper in-court identification, and vindictive/harsher sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peremptory challenges allotment | Commonwealth: six peremptories were proper for the first phase since judge intended to empanel separate juries | Crayton: Rule 20 entitled him to 14 peremptory challenges for the first phase because he faced imprisonment for life as a subsequent offender; judge's reduction deprived him of statutory rights | Reversed: defendant entitled to 14 peremptory challenges for first phase; error preserved and requires new trial (Berardi controls) |
| In-court identification by library employee (Ricard) | Commonwealth: Ricard was familiar with defendant pre-incident; Crayton I rule limiting in-court IDs applies only to eyewitnesses present during the crime | Crayton: Crayton I barred admission of in-court showup identifications where no out-of-court procedure occurred | Affirmed: Crayton I rule applies to witnesses who saw the crime; Ricard was not present during the offense and the judge properly found "good reason" to admit his identification after voir dire |
| Sentence increase / double jeopardy / vindictiveness | Commonwealth: new sentencing appropriate given duplication of indictments and need for supervision on parole | Crayton: Retrial sentence (5–8 years) is harsher than original and violates double jeopardy or reflects judicial vindictiveness | Double jeopardy not implicated; vindictiveness standard governs; court found no basis to conclude vindictiveness but remanded on other grounds (new trial), so sentencing issue need not be resolved here |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (Mass. 2014) (announced rule restricting admission of in-court identifications by eyewitnesses who observed the crime)
- Commonwealth v. Berardi, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 466 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015) (defendant facing life exposure under Rule 20 entitled to increased peremptory challenges; preservation and prejudice principles discussed)
- Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1988) (peremptory challenges are statutory, not constitutional; deprivation is of what state law provides)
- Commonwealth v. Bockman, 442 Mass. 757 (Mass. 2004) (error in denial of peremptory challenge that results in seating the challenged juror requires reversal without separate prejudice showing)
- Commonwealth v. Mello, 420 Mass. 375 (Mass. 1995) (no constitutional right to peremptory challenges; statutory entitlement governs)
- Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2003) (double jeopardy rules regarding increased punishment after retrial)
- Commonwealth v. Jarvis, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 538 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007) (distinguishing double jeopardy from judicial vindictiveness on resentencing)