Commonwealth v. Rocheleau
90 Mass. App. Ct. 634
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- On May 22, 2013, Matthew Rocheleau entered a 62‑year‑old victim’s home during the day; the victim discovered him in the kitchen and he left. She saw him break through her backyard fence (a vinyl section) while trying to escape and later push her against her car and knock her down. Police arrested him; victim reported $20 missing.
- Officer testimony estimated the fence damage exceeded $250; defendant conceded entry but disputed that he had the required specific intent to commit a felony (larceny), raising mental‑impairment/intoxication as his defense.
- Before trial the judge ordered the defendant to remain in ankle shackles and remain seated when jurors entered/exited to keep the restraints from being seen; defense counsel objected but the judge made no contemporaneous, particularized findings explaining the need for visible restraints.
- At trial the judge excluded a defense proffer of a lay witness opinion that the defendant was “high,” and denied a requested instruction on intoxication/mental impairment (the defendant does not challenge that denial on appeal).
- The jury convicted the defendant of breaking and entering in daytime with intent to commit a felony, assault and battery, and wanton destruction of property over $250. Posttrial motion for new trial (including claim re: shackling and ineffective assistance) was denied. Defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Rocheleau's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of shackles during trial | Any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming evidence of guilt | Shackling denied due process and presumption of innocence; judge failed to make case‑specific findings | Error in ordering shackles without particularized findings, but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to strong evidence of intent and guilt |
| Jury instruction re: intent to commit a felony (larceny) | Instruction that defendant intended a larceny was not misleading because larceny in a building is a felony regardless of value | Instruction misstated law because not all larcenies are felonies | Instruction was at most imprecise but not erroneous in context; no substantial risk of miscarriage of justice |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to develop intoxication evidence & preserve objections) | Counsel questioned officer about stolen property and attempted impeachment; no reasonable probability of a different outcome | Counsel failed to develop evidence of intoxication and preserve objections to exclusion of testimony | No abuse of discretion; no demonstration of prejudice warranting new trial; special deference given to motion judge (who was trial judge) |
| Sufficiency of evidence re: damage value and impeachment limitation | Officer estimated fence damage over $250; prior victim statement was not inconsistent and would add little to defense | Evidence insufficient to show >$250 damage; exclusion/limitation on impeachment deprived right to impeach witness | Evidence supported value >$250; prior statement was not meaningfully inconsistent and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (visible restraints presumptively impermissible absent case‑specific findings)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 364 Mass. 471 (1974) (shackling and unusual security measures should be avoided; reasons should be placed on the record)
- Commonwealth v. Tyree, 455 Mass. 676 (2009) (harmless‑error analysis for trial security measures)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 430 Mass. 182 (1999) (larceny in a building is a felony regardless of value)
- Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303 (1986) (deference to trial judge on postconviction motion when judge also presided at trial)