Commonwealth v. Roby
462 Mass. 398
| Mass. | 2012Background
- In 2001 a grand jury indicted Randy Roby in Essex County on six counts of rape of a child under 16 by force.
- At the 2003 trial, one indictment was acquitted; the remaining five resulted in guilty verdicts.
- In October 2004, the trial court granted Roby’s motion for a new trial.
- In December 2008 a new trial proceeded before a different judge on the remaining five indictments, involving Nancy (three counts) and Toria (two counts).
- After the Commonwealth rested, the judge entered not guilty findings on Nancy’s rape-by-force charges for lack of penetration, and submitted lesser offenses (indecent assault and battery on a person under 14) to the jury; for Toria, the judge found insufficient force and submitted two counts of statutory rape to the jury.
- The jury convicted on all charges, and Roby appealed on multiple grounds including indictment scope, first complaint testimony, cross-examination limitations, and bad act evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of location variance in Toria indictments | Variance affected location not element; no prejudice. | Location variance prejudiced defense and modified grand jury work. | No prejudice; variance is form-only and not material. |
| Admissibility of Paula as first complaint witness | Substitution appropriate; Paula could testify as first complaint. | First complaint substitution lacks finding and could be prejudicial. | Permissible; substitution supported; no reversible error. |
| Scope/cumulative effect of first complaint evidence | Combining statements enhances credibility and context. | Repetition of complaints risks prejudice. | No substantial miscarriage of justice; cumulative testimony permissible. |
| Impeachment of Toria with murder indictment; mistrial request | Impeachment allowed for bias; should be explored. | Late impeachment and new evidence require mistrial or broader leeway. | Impeachment exclusion and mistrial denial within discretion; no prejudice given curative strike. |
| Admission of bad act evidence (images, nipple paint incident, etc.) | Bad act evidence contextualizes first complaint and pattern. | Improper propensity evidence. | Admissible; proper to show context and absence of accident. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Miranda, 441 Mass. 783 (2004) (permits form-based indictment amendments consistent with art. 12; location not element)
- Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217 (2005) (defines elements of rape/first complaint doctrine; limits testimony to first complainant)
- Commonwealth v. Aviles, 461 Mass. 60 (2011) (clarifies first complaint admissibility and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Commonwealth v. Haywood, 377 Mass. 755 (1979) (impeachment for bias requires material post-incident change; abuse of discretion standard)
- Commonwealth v. Hoyt, 461 Mass. 143 (2011) (limits substitution/first complaint witness circumstances; relevant to substitution decisions)