Commonwealth v. Hamel
AC 16-P-145
| Mass. App. Ct. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Victim (age 12) lived with family; defendant (age 31) often stayed in the home and spent time alone with the child.
- Child testified defendant repeatedly grabbed and rubbed his penis (one described incident produced "wet stuff"); alleged 10–20 incidents and 5–10 kisses.
- After two+ weeks of the defendant's presence, the child developed penile pain; medical exam on Sept. 26, 2011 showed red, irritated skin diagnosed as dermatitis and treated with a topical cream that resolved it.
- Child initially disclosed only a kiss at a child advocacy center, later disclosed touching; mother had been told by medical staff the irritation might be due to soap not rinsed off.
- At trial, the Commonwealth sought to admit the medical record describing "irritation in the penis area"; trial judge admitted it over defense objection despite no expert testimony linking the dermatitis to sexual touching.
- Prosecutor's closing argued the child's willingness to testify supported credibility; defendant did not object at trial to that portion of closing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of medical records diagnosing penile dermatitis without expert causation testimony | Records show physical condition close in time to alleged abuse and therefore are relevant corroboration | Records lack any medical link between dermatitis and the alleged touching; causation requires expert proof | Admission was erroneous: causation not within lay knowledge; expert required; error prejudicial — warrants new trial |
| Prosecutor's closing argument suggesting witness credibility based on willingness to testify | Argued testimony and conduct (testifying despite difficulty) relevant to credibility | Such argument improperly appeals to sympathy and implies jurors should equate willingness to testify with truthfulness | Prosecutor's argument was improper; when combined with the prejudicial medical-record error, it supports reversal and new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Beaudry, 445 Mass. 577 (2005) (closing argument on witness credibility may be improper when it appeals to witness's willingness to testify)
- Commonwealth v. Cole, 473 Mass. 317 (2015) (standard of review for erroneous admission of medical records when defendant objected)
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 464 Mass. 355 (2013) (expert testimony required where medical causation lies outside jurors' common knowledge)
- Commonwealth v. Kirkpatrick, 423 Mass. 436 (1996) (excluding medical records without expert testimony where causation and test reliability would be speculative)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless-error standard requiring assurance that error did not substantially influence the verdict)