23 N.E.3d 135
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Eleven-year-old Haleigh Poutre arrived at hospital on Sept. 11, 2005, unconscious with severe brain trauma, extensive bruises, burns, and wounds of varying ages; MRI/CT evidence placed the brain injury about Sept. 10.
- Haleigh lived with her mother Holli Strickland and defendant stepfather Jason Strickland; forensic and eyewitness evidence tied injuries to the home (bloodstains, tools, bat with Haleigh’s name).
- Multiple eyewitnesses (Haleigh’s sister, neighbor Alicia Weiss, others) testified that Holli and the defendant physically abused Haleigh (beatings, pushes down basement stairs, hitting with bat and a plastic wand).
- Defense theory: defendant believed Haleigh was self‑injuring and was misled by medical providers who treated/diagnosed self‑injury; defense sought to admit pediatrician/nurse practitioner records/testimony to corroborate that belief.
- Trial: jury convicted defendant of wantonly/recklessly permitting assault and battery causing substantial bodily injury (head injury), wantonly/recklessly permitting other injuries, and multiple assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon counts; convictions affirmed and new‑trial motion denied.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth’s Argument | Strickland’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of pediatrician/nurse testimony re: prior diagnoses of self‑injury (relevancy/corroboration) | Excluded evidence was cumulative, of limited probative value, and unreliable to prove defendant’s state of mind because defendant never spoke to providers; other eyewitness and record evidence undermined its weight. | The testimony and records were relevant to mens rea: they would corroborate that defendant reasonably believed injuries were self‑inflicted and thus had no duty to act. | Court held evidence was arguably relevant and could have been admitted in judge’s discretion but its exclusion was not prejudicial given abundant inculpatory evidence. |
| Sufficiency — wand as dangerous weapon | Object used caused pain and screams and thus could be a dangerous weapon as used; Commonwealth argued use supported the jury finding. | Defendant argued the plastic wand was not a dangerous weapon per se. | Court held jury reasonably could find the wand, as used, capable of producing serious bodily harm; conviction sustained. |
| Sufficiency — head injury conviction (timing/cause) | Eyewitnesses placed defendant participating in or permitting repeated stair‑pushes and other abuse; post‑injury conduct showed wanton/reckless failure to obtain timely care. | Defendant challenged sufficiency and suggested alternate theories of timing/causation. | Court held evidence supported wanton/reckless permitting of assault causing brain injury; conviction sustained. |
| Ineffective assistance / new‑trial (failure to impeach witnesses; failure to obtain MSBP expert; no evidentiary hearing) | Trial counsel effectively cross‑examined; MSBP materials were prepared later for a civil defense and did not address defendant’s role; evidence was not newly discovered and would not have exculpated defendant. | Counsel failed to impeach key witnesses and should have retained MSBP expert; the MSBP materials warranted an evidentiary hearing. | Court held no manifest injustice: counsel’s performance not shown deficient in a way that would likely change outcome; MSBP evidence was not newly discovered or sufficiently relevant; denial of hearing proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Emence, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 299 (1999) (admission of corroborative evidence rests in trial judge’s discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Twitchell, 416 Mass. 114 (1993) (defense entitled to present evidence of reliance on beliefs supporting mens rea)
- Commonwealth v. Marrero, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 921 (1984) (object not dangerous per se may be weapon depending on use)
- Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383 (1944) (wanton or reckless conduct established by defendant’s failure to act despite known danger)
- Commonwealth v. Torres, 442 Mass. 554 (2004) (‘‘permitting’’ another to commit assault and battery encompasses broad conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Wall, 469 Mass. 652 (2014) (failure to impeach generally not reversible ineffective assistance)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (1974) (standard for ineffective assistance review — showing available substantial defense was lost)
- Commonwealth v. LeFave, 430 Mass. 169 (1999) (new‑trial standards; newly discovered evidence requirement)