940 N.E.2d 481
Mass. App. Ct.2010Background
- Defendant Paul Revells was convicted of four counts of rape of a child with force under G. L. c. 265, § 22A, after a jury trial.
- Defendant moved for a new trial, appealing primarily on claimed error in admitting testimony under the first complaint doctrine.
- The Commonwealth’s first witness was the victim, who described years of rape and abuse by Revells and confirmed disclosures to doctor and police.
- The mother testified as the first complaint witness and described the victim’s initial disclosure, including a letter the victim wrote to the mother.
- The letter was read and discussed; the defendant contended the letter itself should have been the first complaint, raising best evidence concerns and a voir dire issue.
- The court held that the mother’s testimony describing the entire first complaint, including the letter, was admissible and that, although there were some errors, the defendant was not prejudiced; conviction and denial of motion for new trial were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the first complaint doctrine was correctly applied | Revells argues the letter was the first complaint and the mother’s testimony was improper. | Revells contends voir dire was needed to determine who/what constituted the first complaint and that multiple complaints were improperly admitted. | No reversible error; proper application of the first complaint doctrine. |
| Whether the letter itself violated the best evidence rule | The letter should govern the first complaint and its contents require best evidence rule protections. | The letter was part of the integrated first-complaint communication and not a separate document needing production. | No best evidence error; the letter’s contents could be admitted as part of the first complaint. |
| Whether testimony about complaints to the doctor and police violated the first complaint rule and prejudiced the defendant | Such testimony is unnecessarily prejudicial and beyond the first complaint witness. | Any error was harmless given the evidence and defense strategy. | There was error in admitting the doctor and police testimony, but defendant was not prejudiced; no substantial risk of miscarriage of justice. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress police statements | Ineffective assistance due to failure to pursue suppression of statements. | Counsel’s decisions were strategic and not unreasonable; suppression would not have succeeded. | No ineffective assistance; no substantial ground of defence shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stuckich, 450 Mass. 449 (Mass. 2008) (limits first complaint evidence and requires voir dire when necessary)
- Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217 (Mass. 2005) (first complaint focuses on complainant’s first disclosure)
- Commonwealth v. McCoy, 456 Mass. 838 (Mass. 2010) (details and limits of first complaint testimony and credibility assessment)
- Commonwealth v. Monteiro, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 489 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (first complaint testimony not to recount disproportionate details)
- Commonwealth v. Arana, 453 Mass. 214 (Mass. 2009) (limits on testimony without undue prejudicial impact)
- Commonwealth v. Mendez, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 905 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (defense opening can open door to further first complaint evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Kebreau, 454 Mass. 287 (Mass. 2009) (brief mention of related evidence did not create substantial risk of miscarriage)