Commonwealth v. Knowles
91 N.E.3d 1155
Mass. App. Ct.2017Background
- At ~2:45 a.m. police found the defendant slumped in a parked truck in Boston; he uttered threats and officers discovered two .22 firearms and other items near the truck. Officers frisked and handcuffed him, then read Miranda warnings after finding the first gun. The defendant acknowledged the warnings and spoke with officers.
- Defendant testified he did not possess handguns, described chronic pain, prescription medications, marijuana use, and post-traumatic injuries; he claimed memory gaps about the events. His lay witness (Donna Brashears) also testified she never saw him with a gun during four years together.
- Defense expert Dr. Montgomery Brower (forensic psychiatrist) opined defendant was intoxicated/impaired during police contact and experienced a blackout; Brower based his opinion on interviews and records (including a VA physician report by Dr. McCullen) he reviewed.
- Prosecutor cross-examined Brashears and Brower about out-of-court statements allegedly made to Maine Trooper Scott Duff and Dr. McCullen respectively; Duff and McCullen were not called as witnesses. The prosecutor also cross-examined the defendant about his admitted conversation with Duff.
- Trial judge admitted the defendant's pre-Miranda and post-Miranda statements as voluntary after voir dire; jury convicted defendant of two counts of unlawful possession of a loaded firearm (G. L. c. 269, § 10).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cross-examining Brashears with out-of-court statements to Trooper Duff violated the rule against impeachment by innuendo (Peck rule) | Commonwealth argued it could impeach Brashears after she denied seeing guns; prosecutor had a good-faith basis to ask about Duff's report | Defendant argued prosecutor impermissibly smuggled extrinsic, inadmissible statements into evidence via innuendo (Peck) | Court: Cross-examination of Brashears violated Peck but error was harmless and did not affect verdict |
| Whether cross-examining the defendant about his admitted statements to Trooper Duff violated Peck | Commonwealth defended cross-exam as proper because defendant admitted speaking with Duff and could respond | Defendant argued same innuendo problem | Court: Proper — defendant had admitted the conversation, could explain, so no improper insinuation |
| Whether cross-examination of defense expert Brower using patient/doctors’ reports not before the jury violated Peck or was otherwise improper | Commonwealth argued expert may be questioned about the underlying materials he relied on in forming opinion | Defendant argued Peck should prevent impeaching expert with out-of-court statements of unavailable witnesses | Court: Peck does not apply to expert foundation; cross-examining expert about data he relied on is permissible and was proper here |
| Whether defendant's pre-Miranda statements and his Miranda waiver were involuntary | Commonwealth argued defendant was coherent, made threats clearly, and later was lucid when read Miranda, so statements and waiver were voluntary | Defendant argued intoxication, injuries, medications and blackout rendered statements and waiver involuntary | Held: Trial judge’s voluntariness and waiver findings upheld; statements and waiver proven voluntary beyond reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Peck, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 34 (rule against cross-examination by innuendo; improper imputation of out-of-court statements without witness availability)
- Commonwealth v. Christian, 430 Mass. 552 (prosecutor may not persistently impeach defendant with unavailable witness’s allegations when defendant consistently denies them)
- Department of Youth Servs. v. A Juvenile, 398 Mass. 516 (expert may base opinions on facts or data not in evidence if those are the sort experts reasonably rely on)
- Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 457 Mass. 773 (discusses limits on informing jury of an expert’s undisclosed factual basis and permits cross-examination on those underpinnings)
- Commonwealth v. Delrio, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 712 (examiner should have reasonable basis and proof when impeaching by suggestion; avoid smearing by insinuation)
- Commonwealth v. Anestal, 463 Mass. 655 (balance probative value vs. unfair prejudice when admitting facts underlying expert opinion)