46 N.E.3d 563
Mass. App. Ct.2016Background
- Infant (5½ weeks) presented with multiple fractures (ribs, arms, legs) and an interhemispheric subdural hematoma; injuries dated to different times; some recent.
- Mother Heather Dragotta and boyfriend Steven Amos brought the infant to hospital; DCF referral and transfer to Boston Children’s Hospital followed.
- Dr. Paul Kleinman (pediatric radiologist) and Dr. Celeste Wilson (child protective unit) testified fractures and brain bleed were caused by inflicted trauma; rib fractures and leg fractures were highly specific for abuse.
- Amos admitted repeatedly using a forceful knee-to-chest maneuver to relieve gas, ‘‘dipping/spinning’’ the infant like a guitar, and possibly grabbing the arm too tightly.
- Dragotta admitted observing Amos’s forceful maneuver, told him to stop at least once, but continued to permit him unsupervised care.
- At a bench trial (jury waived), Amos was convicted on three assault and battery counts causing bodily injury; Dragotta convicted of wantonly or recklessly permitting another to assault and batter the child causing bodily injury (head injury).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence against Dragotta for wanton/reckless permitting of head injury | Dragotta knew Amos used forceful maneuvers, observed them, and still allowed unsupervised care creating high likelihood of substantial harm | Dragotta argued evidence did not show she knew of substantial risk or that her omission was wanton/reckless | Affirmed — sufficient circumstantial and direct evidence that Dragotta knew or should have known risk and recklessly permitted care |
| Sufficiency of evidence against Amos for assault and battery causing bodily injury | Amos admitted to forceful acts (knee-to-chest, spinning, grabbing arm) and intended the acts; ordinary person would recognize risk | Amos claimed acts were caretaking or loco parentis, that he lacked awareness of substantial risk, and that Commonwealth must show exclusive control | Affirmed — force exceeded caretaking, admissions support recklessness/intent, control/inferences sufficient |
| Expert testimony scope (Wilson referencing neuroradiologist) — Confrontation Clause and testimony basis | Commonwealth: Wilson relied on scans and her review; may reference consultation as material for her independent opinion | Amos: Wilson relayed neuroradiologist’s impression, depriving him of right to cross-examine that consultant and improperly presented underlying facts on direct | No reversible error — Wilson gave her independent opinion, not testimonial hearsay; even assuming error, any prejudice was not substantial (bench trial presumption judge applied proper law) |
| Admission of underlying facts relied upon by expert on direct exam | Commonwealth: experts may rely on others’ data; expert can testify to basis without parroting inadmissible specifics | Amos: Direct presentation of relied-upon specifics violated limits on expert testimony and impaired adversary testing | Assuming error, harmless — defense elicited favorable points, another expert agreed the hematoma was acute, and bench setting mitigates prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (establishing standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383 (wanton/reckless conduct and liability for omissions)
- Commonwealth v. Garcia, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 419 (circumstantial evidence can show parent knew of risk to infant)
- Commonwealth v. Roderiques, 462 Mass. 415 (parental knowledge of assaults and reckless failure to intervene)
- Commonwealth v. Greineder, 464 Mass. 580 (limits on expert testimony and reliance on underlying facts)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (bench-trial presumption that judge will ignore inadmissible evidence)