975 N.E.2d 890
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant indicted in 2008 for parental kidnapping, assault with a dangerous weapon, simple assault, and furnishing a false name.
- Trial: defendant admitted kidnapping but contested criminal responsibility; jury convicted kidnapping and assault with a dangerous weapon, acquitted on other charges.
- Custody dispute and relocation culminated in July 2008 kidnapping of his daughter with a accomplice; victim injured during the abduction.
- Defendant, under the alias Clark Rockefeller, traveled with daughter, later fled with assistance from a livery driver Hopkins.
- Arrest and FBI videotaped interview occurred a week after the abduction; portions of interview were admitted at trial.
- Defense challenged pretrial publicity, expert testimony, competency evidence, voluntariness of statements, closing argument, and sufficiency of the dangerous weapon conviction; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial publicity and impartial jury | Publicity presumptively prejudicial; change of venue required. | Venue kept Suffolk; publicity tainted venire. | No presumptive prejudice; impartial jury seated; venue not required. |
| Testimony by rebuttal expert on criminal responsibility | Chu's testimony properly discussed McHoul standard. | Chu misstated prongs and burden; should have been struck. | Error on prongs; admissible as medical testimony; instructions cured. |
| Competency to stand trial testimony | Evidence on competency conflates with criminal responsibility. | Expert testimony about competency misled jurors. | No reversible error; instructions distinguished competency from lack of responsibility. |
| Voluntariness of defendant's videotaped statements | Statements voluntary beyond reasonable doubt despite mental illness. | Initial statements may be involuntary due to mental illness; humane practice rule. | Voluntariness upheld; voir dire considered mental condition; no error. |
| Prosecutor's closing argument | Commentary supported verdict and rebutted insanity defense. | Remarks improperly expressed personal belief about defendant's credibility. | Remarks not reversible error; context and instructions rendered them permissible advocacy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Susi, 394 Mass. 784 (1985) (impartial jury right; change of venue framework)
- Commonwealth v. Guisti, 434 Mass. 245 (2001) (pretrial publicity and impartiality considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Toolan, 460 Mass. 452 (2011) (presumptive prejudice and voir dire factors)
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 432 Mass. 1 (2000) (change of venue cautious approach)
- Commonwealth v. McCowen, 458 Mass. 461 (2010) (trial judge discretion on venue and publicity)
- Commonwealth v. Amaral, 389 Mass. 184 (1983) (expert testimony on mental state and responsibility apart from McHoul)
- Commonwealth v. Laliberty, 373 Mass. 238 (1977) (McHoul standard articulation)
- Commonwealth v. DeWolfe, 389 Mass. 120 (1983) (distinct questions: competency vs. criminal responsibility)
- Commonwealth v. Edwards, 420 Mass. 666 (1995) (burden of proof on voluntariness of statements)
- Commonwealth v. Russin, 420 Mass. 309 (1995) (competency standards in trial context)
- Commonwealth v. Francis, 432 Mass. 353 (2000) (voir dire regarding extraneous material)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 376 Mass. 790 (1978) (individual juror exposure in voir dire)
- Commonwealth v. Kozilek, 423 Mass. 449 (1996) (prosecutor's rhetoric and credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Angiulo, 415 Mass. 502 (1993) (media coverage and prejudice context)
- Commonwealth v. Smill, 455 Mass. 503 (2009) (appellate review of closing arguments)