984 N.E.2d 308
Mass. App. Ct.2013Background
- In 1988, within the two-tier juvenile trial system, a juvenile charged with forcible rape of a child was tried by bench trial and adjudicated delinquent for rape; related charges were resolved by guilty pleas to two property crimes with matching custody terms.
- The two-year-old victim’s mother witnessed the act; medical testimony and seminal fluid evidence supported the rape finding.
- The juvenile did not request a de novo jury trial for the rape charge after the bench adjudication.
- In 2010 the juvenile moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for (i) failure to consult, (ii) failure to advise of a trial, and (iii) failure to seek a de novo jury trial; accompanying affidavits were provided but no trial-counsel affidavit.
- A trial-court judge granted the motion for a new trial, later vacated, and after further proceedings again granted the motion; the judge stated that not exercising de novo rights constituted ineffective assistance.
- On appeal, the court held that per se per se ineffective assistance cannot be assumed from not pursuing a de novo trial and that totality of circumstances must be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failing to claim a de novo trial is per se ineffective | Juvenile argues failure equals ineffectiveness | Commonwealth contends per se rule applies | Not per se; must assess totality of circumstances |
| Whether counsel's failure to consult or advise about de novo rights amounts to ineffective assistance | Juvenile claims counseling omissions violated standard | Commonwealth disputes prejudice and reasonable conduct | Must be evaluated under totality of circumstances; not automatically prejudicial |
| Whether the potential collateral consequences of a sex offense justify retrial | Collateral consequences support opportunity for retrial | No automatic benefit from retrial given circumstances | Not dispositive; no guaranteed prejudice or benefit shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (Mass. 1974) (standard for evaluating ineffectiveness requires totality of circumstances)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (no per se rule; reasonableness judged case by case)
- Commonwealth v. Ogden O., 448 Mass. 798 (Mass. 2007) (juvenile proceedings follow same standard as adult trials)
- Commonwealth v. Ike I., 53 Mass. App. Ct. 907 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (applies totality-of-circumstances approach)
- Commonwealth v. Satterfield, 373 Mass. 109 (Mass. 1977) (context for evaluating defense performance)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 460 Mass. 30 (Mass. 2011) (burden on defendant to show but-for prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 443 Mass. 867 (Mass. 2005) (considerations of collateral consequences and timing)