Commonwealth v. Santos, 950 N.E.2d 60

In Dorchester, Boston, late Apr 13–early Apr 14, 2006, police confrontation with residents and guests led to arrests on multiple charges.
Scotty Santos and Jonathan Santos were convicted of disturbing the peace; Scotty also convicted of two counts of assault and battery on a police officer and resisting arrest.
Defendants sought to introduce statements allegedly made by police officers during the events, including racial slurs and threats, through Scotty and two civilian witnesses.
Judge initially excluded the statements as hearsay, later allowing one officer’s statements from Scotty’s testimony; other witnesses could not testify to what officers said.
Appeals Court held the exclusion was error but harmless; the Supreme Judicial Court granted review and addressed the standard of review and the effect of the error.
The Court held the exclusion was not constitutional error and applied prejudicial-error review; the error was prejudicial, and convictions were reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What is the proper standard of review for the evidentiary error?	Commonwealth concedes statements were not hearsay; argues ordinary error standard.	Santos contends constitutional right to present a complete defense warrants heightened review.	Nonconstitutional error review; prejudicial error standard applies.
Was the exclusion of the officers' statements prejudicial under the evidence rules and due process?	Santos argues the statements would have supported the defense and credibility.	Commonwealth argues any impact was negligible given other testimony.	Exclusion was prejudicial; could have influenced the jury, especially on witness credibility.
Did the trial court's rulings effectively strip the defense of presenting a full account of events?	Santos asserts the defense was deprived of key context and credibility indicators.	Commonwealth maintains the defense was still presented overall.	The defense was substantially impaired; reversal warranted.

Commonwealth v. Flebotte, 417 Mass. 348 (Mass. 1994) (nonprejudicial only if the jury was not substantially swayed by the error)
Commonwealth v. Drew, 397 Mass. 65 (Mass. 1986) (ordinary evidentiary rulings rarely constitutional error)
Commonwealth v. Conkey, 443 Mass. 60 (Mass. 2004) (constitutional right to present evidence that another may have committed the crime)
Commonwealth v. Rembiszewski, 391 Mass. 123 (Mass. 1984) (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for certain evidentiary errors)