Commonwealth v. Lawton
82 Mass. App. Ct. 528
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant, biological father of the victim, was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of rape of a child under sixteen and three counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen.
- Victim was born in 1999; abuse began when he was five, occurring in Donna’s and later Vivian’s homes where the victim stayed on weekends.
- 2005 SAIN/interviews and a prior dismissed case; after reconciliation, abuse continued at Donna’s house when victim was six or seven.
- 2005 incident involved defecation-related acts; 2008 SAIN interview disclosed broader abuse, prompting additional investigations.
- Defense cross-examined about interviewing techniques; Rivera-Nunez (SAIN interviewer) testified about inconsistencies and frequency of abuse.
- Judge allowed some first-compliant testimony to rehabilitate credibility and to address suggestibility; jury was instructed accordingly and verdicts were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support rape convictions | Commonwealth argues multiple acts satisfied rape statute | Defense claims insufficiency or misapplication of elements | Sufficient evidence; rational jury could find three rapes beyond reasonable doubt |
| Duplicative convictions for rape and indecent assault | Different acts support separate counts | Potential duplication risks | No substantial miscarriage; proper instruction and distinct acts sustain convictions |
| First complaint testimony and Rivera-Nunez evidence | Evidence independently admissible to rehabilitate and address suggestibility | Admission violates first complaint doctrine | No abuse of discretion; limited disclosure and proper curative instructions; admissible under standards described |
| Expert testimony about coprophilia and other sexual disorders | Helpful to explain depravity and corroborate allegations | Unnecessarily prejudicial or unrelated | Admissible; testimony brief, relevant, and not unduly prejudicial |
| Juror sleeping during trial and juror no. 8 dismissal | No impact on verdict; reasonable safeguards used | Removal or replacement necessary to protect rights | No abuse of discretion; voir dire and sleep apnea testimony used; juror excused |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (standard for sufficiency after viewing evidence in light of the elements)
- Commonwealth v. Velasquez, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 147 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999) (instruction on sufficiency; guidance on appellate review)
- Commonwealth v. Arias, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 429 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (addressing sufficiency and appellate standards)
- Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217 (Mass. 2005) (unanimity and multiple acts; proper limiting instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Aviles, 461 Mass. 60 (Mass. 2011) (first complaint doctrine; abuse of discretion standard retroactive)
- Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 454 Mass. 215 (Mass. 2009) (rehabilitation after impeachment; admissibility)