Commonwealth v. Hammond, 477 Mass. 499

A 22‑year‑old defendant was convicted of vaginal intercourse with three boys aged 13–15 under G. L. c. 265, § 23; she was acquitted on counts alleging oral penetration.
Incidents occurred in two related episodes in June 2012: oral sex and intercourse in the woods with two boys and subsequent intercourse (and oral sex with one) with three boys; one nonparticipating witness reported to his parents and police were notified.
Defendant gave a recorded police interview weeks later, admitted to sexual contact, and was arrested; she moved pretrial to suppress that interview and the motion was denied.
At trial two witnesses testified under grants of immunity; the jury viewed a redacted video of the interview during deliberations and convicted the defendant on three indictments.
Defendant appealed arguing (1) confession involuntary/Miranda issues, (2) insufficient redaction of police statements in the recording, (3) improper prosecutorial closing argument, and (4) as‑applied due process challenge to mandatory SORB registration under G. L. c. 6, § 178E(f).
The court affirmed convictions, upheld denial of suppression, found redaction and closing‑argument issues nonprejudicial, and rejected an as‑applied due process violation at the first (registration‑submission) stage while leaving stage‑two SORB challenges open.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness of confession	Confession voluntary; police met burden	Interrogation coerced by threats re: child custody, minimization, and false/deceptive statements	Confession voluntary under totality; defendant sober, Mirandized, not overborne; suppression denial affirmed
Redaction of police statements in interview video	Recording context justified limited redactions	Two police statements were prejudicial and should have been redacted further	Trial judge acted within discretion; limited unredacted remarks provided context and were not palpably erroneous
Prosecutor's closing argument	Prosecutor’s comments were proper inferences and fair comment	Closing contained improper vouching, oath invocation, and appeal to statute policy	Most remarks proper; two improper (oath, statute purpose) but cured by judge’s curative instruction and not prejudicial
As‑applied due process challenge to mandatory SORB registration	Statutory bar to judge relieving those convicted of offenses involving children violates due process as applied	Government interest in law enforcement information and public protection outweighs limited liberty interest at stage one	No due process violation at stage one (submission/transmission of registration data); defendant may raise as‑applied challenges at SORB classification stage

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warning and custody interrogation principles)
Commonwealth v. Monroe, 472 Mass. 461 (2015) (totality test for voluntariness and weighing police threats)
Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 460 Mass. 199 (2011) (voluntariness standard under totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Selby, 420 Mass. 656 (1995) (factors for voluntariness and deceptive police tactics)
Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423 (2004) (minimization and implied promises affecting voluntariness)
Roe v. Attorney Gen., 434 Mass. 418 (2001) (due process framework for SORB/registration challenges)
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 8725 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 450 Mass. 780 (2008) (limits on mandatory registration and recognition of possible constitutional vulnerability)
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 380316 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 473 Mass. 297 (2015) (SORB classification procedures and burdens at hearing)
Commonwealth v. Dalton, 467 Mass. 555 (2014) (statute precludes sentencing judge relief for offenses involving children)
Commonwealth v. Kozec, 399 Mass. 514 (1987) (permissible scope of prosecutorial argument)
Commonwealth v. Robidoux, 450 Mass. 144 (2007) (curative instruction can mitigate improper argument)