Commonwealth v. Hampton, AC 16-P-1355

Defendant Raymond Hampton, the child's great-uncle, lived in the home and slept in a bedroom used by the child (Adele) and her sister; the sisters sometimes used the defendant's computer.
Adele (age nine) testified to two incidents in October 2015: forced digital/genital contact and forced touching of the defendant's penis; she reported inconsistencies in prior statements about whether contact was over or under clothing and whether her chest was touched.
Adele first disclosed to a counselor on October 21, 2015; police were notified and defendant was arrested October 30, 2015.
During a police interview (waiving Miranda), the defendant denied the accusations but stated he had recently watched a pornographic movie involving two Chinese women and denied they were children; forensic images from his computer were not introduced at trial.
The trial judge granted in part a motion in limine: excluded images but allowed testimony about the defendant's statement that he watched pornography; the judge limited later use (barred impeachment with the statement and its use in closing) and gave a DiGiambattista instruction.
Jury convicted the defendant of one count of indecent assault and battery on a minor under fourteen and acquitted him of the other; defendant appealed the admission of the pornography statement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of defendant's statement that he watched adult pornography	The Commonwealth (and trial judge initially) treated the statement as admissible in the context of a sex-crime investigation	Hampton argued the statement was irrelevant to charges and highly prejudicial; should be excluded	Statement was irrelevant and should have been excluded, because it did not corroborate the victim or show sexual interest in children
Whether admission of the statement was prejudicial requiring a new trial	Commonwealth argued any error was harmless given limits on use and overall evidence	Hampton argued the single statement was inflammatory and, without limiting instruction, likely prejudiced the jury	Error was harmless under circumstances: single brief reference, no images admitted, cross-exam limited, no closing argument reference, and jury acquitted on one count indicating careful parsing of evidence; conviction affirmed

Commonwealth v. Coates, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 728 (2016) (review of prejudicial error; relevance threshold for sexual-evidence issues)
Commonwealth v. Carey, 463 Mass. 378 (2012) (all evidence must meet relevancy threshold)
Commonwealth v. Petrillo, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 104 (2000) (relevancy requires rational tendency to prove an issue)
Commonwealth v. Jaundoo, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 56 (2005) (evidence of sexual material must corroborate or be probative of sexual interest in children)
Commonwealth v. Christie, 89 Mass. App. Ct. 665 (2016) (distinguishing relevance of sexual-material evidence)
Commonwealth v. Meas, 467 Mass. 434 (2014) (standard for affirming despite evidentiary error: conviction not substantially swayed)
Commonwealth v. Flebotte, 417 Mass. 348 (1994) (error requires reversal only if it substantially influenced jury)
Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423 (2004) (requirements when interview not recorded and witness testimony about statements)