Commonwealth v. Jones
37 N.E.3d 589
Mass.2015Background
- Victim (high‑school senior) attended defendant’s party, ingested alcohol, became incapacitated, and later reported being anally/vaginally penetrated by defendant; defendant testified no penetration and consented or only minimal contact.
- Victim underwent SANE "rape kit" exam; three swabs (genital, vaginal, peri‑anal) were tested at State lab; two swabs showed human alpha‑amylase (saliva) and DNA from defendant on an "intimate" vaginal swab.
- Commonwealth presented two State lab chemists as experts; the first (not present at the SANE exam) testified about how the swabs were collected based on the kit inventory; the second testified to DNA match results.
- Defendant objected that the first expert’s testimony relaying the nurse’s descriptions was testimonial hearsay and violated the confrontation right and evidentiary rules; judge overruled and allowed the testimony; defendant convicted on rape and furnishing alcohol to a minor.
- Defendant also challenged a closed (in camera) rape‑shield hearing on admissibility of prior sexual conduct with a first complaint witness; court closed the courtroom pursuant to G. L. c. 233, § 21B without a Waller analysis.
- Supreme Judicial Court vacated convictions and remanded for new trial because (1) trial judge erred in admitting the first expert’s testimonial hearsay about swab collection (prejudicial), and (2) judge erred by closing the rape‑shield hearing without performing the four‑part Waller inquiry (courtroom closures require case‑specific findings).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony about how swabs were collected (testimonial hearsay / confrontation) | Expert may relate the inventory and identify swabs relied on; admission was proper and nurse testimony not required. | Testimony relaying nurse’s statements was testimonial hearsay; expert lacked personal knowledge and deprived defendant of meaningful cross‑examination. | Admission of the first expert’s testimony about swab collection violated confrontation/common‑law rules under Greineder and was prejudicial; convictions vacated and new trial ordered. |
| Applicability of Greineder rule to forensic testimony based on nontestifying personnel’s acts | Greineder allows experts to rely on independently admissible facts; no confrontation problem here. | Greineder does not permit direct presentation on direct exam of testimonial facts by an expert who did not collect the evidence and cannot be meaningfully cross‑examined about collection/chain‑of‑custody. | Greineder requires that testimonial basis not be presented on direct and that the testifying expert be able to be meaningfully cross‑examined about underlying data; those conditions were not met here. |
| Closure of courtroom for rape‑shield (G. L. c. 233, § 21B) hearing | Statute mandates an in camera hearing; closure is permissible and required. | Mandatory closure without case‑specific findings violates the Sixth Amendment public‑trial right; closure must satisfy Waller. | Statute’s mandatory closure contravenes constitutional public‑trial protections; rape‑shield hearings may be closed only after Waller four‑part, case‑specific findings. |
| Remedy for improper courtroom closure during rape‑shield hearing | Not directly argued in detail; Commonwealth urged hearing closure valid. | Defendant sought new trial based on closure. | Failure to apply Waller alone does not always require retrial; remand for posttrial Waller hearing is appropriate; new trial only if different ruling would have produced different trial outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements require unavailability and prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (forensic reports can be testimonial; analysts must be subject to confrontation)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (confrontation right bars surrogate testimony for primary analyst)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (four‑part test required before closing courtroom to public)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (public‑trial right not absolute; mandatory closure rules unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Greineder, 464 Mass. 580 (Mass. rule allowing expert opinion based on independently admissible hearsay only if not presented on direct and expert can be meaningfully cross‑examined)
- Commonwealth v. Tassone, 468 Mass. 391 (expert must be able to address reliability of underlying data and chain of custody)
- Commonwealth v. Mountry, 463 Mass. 80 (rape‑shield statute exceptions include evidence of bias/motive to fabricate)