35 N.E.3d 771
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of rape of a child, aggravated rape of a child, indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen, and assault with intent to rape a child, arising from repeated sexual abuse of N.M. beginning when she was eight and continuing until about thirteen.
- The Commonwealth introduced testimony from the defendant's biological daughter, J.R., that the defendant sexually abused her as a child in the early-to-mid 1990s. That testimony was the subject of a pretrial motion in limine.
- J.R. had previously recanted after an initial report; her trial testimony was brief. The defendant argued the evidence was too remote, factually dissimilar, and unduly prejudicial.
- At trial the judge admitted J.R.'s testimony for limited purposes (pattern, modus operandi, intent, and corroboration), and the judge gave limiting instructions to the jury both before and in the final charge.
- After conviction, the defendant moved for a new trial arguing improper admission of prior-bad-acts evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial judge denied the motion. The Appeals Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior-bad-acts (uncharged sexual abuse of J.R.) | Evidence admissible to show common scheme, pattern, intent, and to corroborate victim | Too remote in time, factually dissimilar, and unduly prejudicial; cannot be used to corroborate | Admissible: facts, ages, relationship, method, threats, and private bedroom assaults sufficiently similar; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Remoteness of prior acts | Similarity and schematic nexus overcome temporal gap | Eight-year gap (or more) makes evidence too remote | Gap not dispositive; similar modus operandi and lack of intervening access make lapse permissible |
| Use of prior acts to corroborate complainant | Corroboration is an appropriate purpose for such evidence | Corroboration is improper use of prior-bad-acts evidence | Corroboration is a permissible limited use; jury instructions limited purpose and cured risk |
| Ineffective assistance for counsel’s handling of J.R. | Admission was proper; counsel preserved objections and pursued reasonable strategy | Counsel erred by eliciting damaging testimony and failing to mount effective objections | No ineffective assistance: objections were renewed; strategy to impeach/bias was reasonable and not manifestly unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pillai, 445 Mass. 175 (discusses admissibility balancing and pattern evidence)
- Commonwealth v. King, 387 Mass. 464 (prior sexual misconduct admissible to show common scheme and corroboration)
- Commonwealth v. Hanlon, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 810 (temporal and schematic nexus required for uncharged acts)
- Commonwealth v. Aguiar, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 193 (similar ages and methods support admission despite gaps)
- Commonwealth v. Barrett, 418 Mass. 788 (requirement of temporal and schematic nexus for prior acts)
- Commonwealth v. Delong, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 42 (counsel not ineffective for declining futile objections; limits on prejudice arguments)
- Commonwealth v. Henley, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (deference to strategic trial decisions in ineffective-assistance claims)
- Commonwealth v. Sharpe, 454 Mass. 135 (continuum of similar conduct can defeat remoteness objection)