Commonwealth v. Parent
989 N.E.2d 426
Mass.2013Background
- Defendant John Parent was convicted by a Superior Court jury on three indictments: indecent assault and battery on a 14-year-old friend of his daughter (victim Maxine) under G. L. c. 265, § 13H; and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a child under c. 119, § 63 (one involving alleged delivery of alcohol to Maxine, the other to his daughter Sally).
- The “delivery” theory charged under § 34 (c. 138) alleged the defendant purchased/provided alcohol to the victims, including his own daughter; the § 63 indictments referenced that same conduct.
- During trial, defense challenged the judge’s evidentiary rulings, the timing and impact of Maxine’s first complaint, and the statutory interpretation of § 34 as applied to a parent’s delivery of alcohol to a child.
- Maxine’s out-of-court statements to Detective Chaulk four days after the sleepover allegedly inconsistent with trial testimony were at issue for impeachment.
- Jury requested guidance on the “own child” exemption under § 34; the court ultimately instructed that the exemption applied to procuring and furnishing but not to delivery, and the jury convicted on delivery to Sally.
- On appeal, the court vacated the indecent assault conviction for errors in impeachment evidence, reversed the § 34 delivery conviction as to Sally, and affirmed the § 34 convictions as to Maxine; the court also addressed ineffective assistance arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impeachment by prior inconsistent statements of Maxine | Commonwealth argues Chaulk statements inconsistent; admissible to impeach credibility. | Parent contends trial judge erred by barring extrinsic impeachment of Maxine. | Vacate indecent assault conviction; new trial required on that indictment. |
| Admissibility of second complaint testimony | Commonwealth maintains corroboration via subsequent complaint permissible. | Parent maintains first-complaint doctrine limits testimony to initial complainant. | Second complaint testimony not admissible as to repeatedly corroborate; but impact analyzed in context of bias. |
| Evidence of bias and offer of oral sex (to show bias) | Bias evidence may be admissible if relevant to credibility; rape shield limits apply. | Offer of oral sex could show bias; exclusion appropriate under rape shield or common law balancing. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; insufficient showing of bias to overcome prejudicial risk. |
| Ineffective assistance—opening/closing arguments shifting burden | Commonwealth argues statements did not convert burden; instructions cured any confusion. | Defense comments impermissibly shifted burden. | No ineffective assistance; burden of proof remained with Commonwealth. |
| Delivery of alcohol to own child under § 34 | Prosecution theory permitted delivery liability for Sally. | Statutory exemptions for furnishing/procuring apply to own child; delivery not intended to violate § 34 when given in home. | Delivery to own child in home not punishable under § 34; judgment not guilty entered for Sally; Maxine conviction upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hesketh, 386 Mass. 153 (Mass. 1982) (impeachment of testimony by prior inconsistent statements)
- Commonwealth v. Basch, 386 Mass. 620 (Mass. 1982) (impeachment admissibility of prior statements)
- Commonwealth v. Simmonds, 386 Mass. 234 (Mass. 1982) (prior inconsistent statements sufficient for impeachment)
- Commonwealth v. Daye, 393 Mass. 55 (Mass. 1984) (witness need not recall making a prior statement)
- Commonwealth v. Dargon, 457 Mass. 387 (Mass. 2010) (first complaint doctrine; balancing admissibility of subsequent complaints)
- Commonwealth v. Arana, 453 Mass. 214 (Mass. 2009) (allowing independent reasons for admitting evidence beyond first complaint)
- Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217 (Mass. 2005) (first complaint testimony limits)
- Commonwealth v. Mountry, 463 Mass. 80 (Mass. 2012) (bias evidence must be weighed for prejudicial effect)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 463 Mass. 857 (Mass. 2012) (burden of proof and defense opening/closing statements)
- Commonwealth v. Miranda, 458 Mass. 100 (Mass. 2010) (burden of proof and closing instructions)