971 N.E.2d 833
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Samson Misquina was convicted at trial of indecent assault and battery and assault and battery.
- On appeal, he contends the prosecutor’s closing argument improperly stated facts not in evidence and bolstered Jane’s credibility.
- Jane testified to a sequence: meeting at the parking booth, grabbing the vagina and wrist, scuffle, and escape; husband corroborated the initial complaint.
- The Commonwealth’s closing asserted a detailed, consistent narrative across multiple witnesses, though Jane did not testify about those subsequent reports.
- Prosecutor avoided discussing the substance of any reports to avoid first-complaint constraints, but the closing implied additional corroboration not in evidence.
- The trial judge did not give a curative instruction beyond standard admonitions, and the evidence was not overwhelming; credibility of Jane was central.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the closing argument improperly bolster credibility? | Misquina | Misquina | Yes; prejudicial error |
| Was the error prejudicial under the Flebotte standard? | Beaudry | Beaudry | Yes; judgment reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Beaudry, 445 Mass. 577 (Mass. 2005) (curative instructions may be needed for closing argument errors)
- Commonwealth v. Flebotte, 417 Mass. 348 (Mass. 1994) (prejudicial error framework: whether error influenced the jury)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 445 Mass. 589 (Mass. 2005) (reaffirmed prejudicial-error standard)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 425 Mass. 491 (Mass. 1997) (misstatement of evidence considered prejudicial on key issues)
- Commonwealth v. Arana, 453 Mass. 214 (Mass. 2009) (first complaint doctrine discussed)
- Commonwealth v. Stuckich, 450 Mass. 449 (Mass. 2008) (back door piling on of complaints referenced)