121 N.E.3d 1189
Mass.2019Background
- Defendant (native Spanish speaker, required a Spanish interpreter at trial) was convicted in District Court of indecent assault and battery on a 12-year-old victim after an incident in the victim-caregiver's apartment.
- At voir dire, defense requested a collective venire question: “Do you have any problem with a defendant that requires the services of a Spanish-speaking interpreter?” The judge denied the request; Commonwealth did not oppose the substance but the judge declined because victim and defendant were of same ethnicity.
- Jury heard testimony from four witnesses, including: the victim, the victim’s father (first complaint witness), and a DCF investigator who recounted speaking with various persons and the defendant’s statements.
- Defense objected at trial to (1) omission of the requested language-bias voir dire question, (2) admission of certain DCF-investigator testimony, (3) alleged improper bolstering by the first complaint witness, and (4) the trial court’s use of the standard first-complaint instruction.
- The SJC affirmed the conviction, rejecting each claim but announcing guidance that, when a defendant’s need for an interpreter is likely to be known to the jury, judges should, on request, ordinarily ask the venire about language-related bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire — language-related bias question | No explicit argument for plaintiff; court reviews statutory and supervisory requirements for voir dire | Defendant: judge should have asked venire collectively whether jurors harbor bias against non-English speakers / those needing interpreters | No abuse of discretion here; but court urges judges to ordinarily ask such a question on request when interpreter use will be apparent to jurors |
| Admission of DCF investigator testimony about who he spoke to | N/A | Testimony that investigator spoke to “a lot of individuals” (including professionals) was unfairly prejudicial and suggested extra-judicial corroboration | Admission of the fact of investigation to lay foundation for defendant’s statements was permissible; even if mention of others was erroneous, any prejudice was minimal and harmless |
| First-complaint witness — alleged bolstering | N/A | Father’s testimony that he observed the victim was "nervous" and he "knew something was wrong" impermissibly vouched for complainant | Permissible: testimony described complainant’s demeanor around time of complaint (circumstances of first complaint), not the father’s belief in truthfulness; prosecution may rely on it in argument |
| Jury instruction — King first-complaint instruction | N/A | Defendant: standard King instruction about possible delay in reporting was unnecessary and risked injecting delay as an issue, thus prejudicial | No error: instruction properly contextualizes timing and is appropriate even where there was little or no delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 481 Mass. 443 (discusses Sixth Amendment and impartial jury/voir dire)
- Commonwealth v. Lopes, 440 Mass. 731 (trial judge discretion on voir dire; when additional inquiry required)
- Commonwealth v. Silva, 455 Mass. 503 (scope of voir dire governed by trial judge discretion; mandatory categories discussed)
- Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217 (first-complaint doctrine; limits on bolstering and permissible testimony about circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Hobbs, 385 Mass. 863 (individual voir dire required where victim and defendant differ in race/ethnicity in sexual-offense-against-children cases)
- Commonwealth v. McCoy, 456 Mass. 838 (limits on testimony detailing investigative steps; foundation vs. prejudicial effect)
- Commonwealth v. Estremera, 383 Mass. 382 (judge may rely on instructions to cure juror bias absent reason to suspect prejudice)
- Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (federal recognition of the importance of addressing interpreter-related issues and perceptions)