Commonwealth v. McGann, 141 N.E.3d 405

Background

Defendant Skye McGann and victim (her then‑boyfriend) lived together; late on Jan. 15–16, 2017 they had a violent confrontation. The victim made two frantic phone calls to his mother reporting he had been punched, bitten, and that the defendant "pulled out a knife" and "tried to kill me."
Neighbors overheard threats from the apartment attributed to the defendant; police arrived and observed the victim covered in fresh blood with bite marks and lacerations; officers observed no visible injuries on the defendant.
The victim invoked his Fifth Amendment right and did not testify at trial. The judge admitted the victim’s telephone statements to his mother as nontestimonial excited utterances and admitted a statement in the victim’s medical record under the medical‑records exception.
At trial the defendant testified and asserted self‑defense; the jury convicted her of assault and battery on a family/household member and assault by means of a dangerous weapon.
The prosecutor’s cross‑examination included a line of loaded questions repeating out‑of‑court assertions; the court found most of that questioning improper but harmless. After conviction the judge ordered the defendant to pay $232.37 restitution to the victim’s mother for medical‑related expenses she had paid.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (McGann)	Held
Admissibility of victim’s phone statements to his mother (Confrontation Clause / excited utterance)	Statements were nontestimonial emergency statements and admissible as spontaneous/excited utterances.	Statements were testimonial or, alternatively, insufficiently reliable to admit without cross‑examination.	Admitted: objective circumstances showed primary purpose was emergency, not to create trial substitute; excited utterance admissible and not Confrontation Clause violation.
Admission of statement in victim’s medical record	Admissible under medical‑records exception as history of present illness and basis for treatment.	Statement was testimonial accusation implicating defendant and thus inadmissible.	Admitted: record entry related to causes of injuries and treatment; falls within medical‑records exception and is nontestimonial.
Prosecutor’s cross‑examination repeating alleged out‑of‑court statements	Had good‑faith basis (notes of interviews) to ask impeaching questions.	Questions were improperly loaded and suggested inadmissible hearsay; deprived defendant of fair trial.	Improper questioning occurred but was brief, defendant denied each allegation, was not emphasized in closing, and did not create substantial risk of miscarriage of justice.
Sufficiency of evidence on self‑defense	Commonwealth showed injuries, contemporaneous statements, and witness testimony permitting rejection of self‑defense.	Defendant’s testimony described being pinned, injured, and acting to escape; Commonwealth failed to disprove self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt.	Sufficiency upheld: jury could reasonably discredit defendant, find no reasonable belief of imminent deadly harm or proportionality, and convict.
Restitution to third party (victim’s mother)	Restitution proper where expenses were causally connected to offense and reasonably foreseeable; judges have broad restitution authority.	Mother is a nonvictim third party who voluntarily paid expenses; restitution to her was improper or insufficiently causally connected.	Upheld: judge has discretion to order third‑party restitution where expenses bear a causal and significant relationship to the offense and were reasonably foreseeable.

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause: testimonial hearsay framework)
Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (primary‑purpose test for testimonial statements)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (primary‑purpose analysis; emergency statements)
Commonwealth v. King, 436 Mass. 252 (2002) (spontaneous utterance reliability/limited gatekeeping)
Commonwealth v. King, 460 Mass. 80 (2011) (burden and elements for proving defendant did not act in self‑defense)
Commonwealth v. Beatrice, 460 Mass. 255 (excited utterance and confrontation analysis)
Commonwealth v. Hurley, 455 Mass. 53 (voir dire requirement before admitting excited utterances)
Commonwealth v. DiMonte, 427 Mass. 233 (medical‑record exception limits)
Commonwealth v. Torres, 479 Mass. 641 (medical records admissible when directly related to treatment)
Commonwealth v. McIntyre, 436 Mass. 829 (restitution authority and causation standard)
Commonwealth v. Denehy, 466 Mass. 723 (broad judicial latitude in restitution orders)