NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
14-P-368 Appeals Court
COMMONWEALTH vs. GERMAINE WRAY.
No. 14-P-368.
Hampden. April 1, 2015. - September 28, 2015.
Present: Vuono, Meade, & Carhart, JJ.
Practice, Criminal, Objection, Offer of proof. Evidence, Offer
of proof, Prior inconsistent statement, Impeachment of
credibility, Credibility of witness. Witness, Impeachment,
Credibility.
Complaint received and sworn to in the Springfield Division
of the District Court Department on November 20, 2012.
The case was tried before Mary E. Hurley, J.
Peter J. Brewer for the defendant.
Alyson C. Yorlano, Assistant District Attorney, for the
Commonwealth.
CARHART, J. The defendant appeals from his convictions of
assault and threating to commit a crime.1 He claims that the
1
The defendant was charged with assault and battery and was
convicted of the lesser included offense of assault. He was
also charged with assault by means of a dangerous weapon, but
2
judge erred by barring defense counsel from eliciting from the
alleged victim, Rosa Cruz, the sole witness in the case, whether
she had made certain statements to defense counsel that were
inconsistent with her testimony at trial. We reverse.
Background. The jury could have found the following facts
based on the evidence presented at trial. The defendant and
Cruz had been in a dating relationship for about one month,
when, on November 19, 2012, they both attended a Narcotics
Anonymous meeting in West Springfield. Before the meeting
began, the defendant saw Cruz hug another man. The defendant
became upset, started yelling at Cruz, and said that he was
going to come back and "fuck [her] up." That night, Cruz was
interviewed by and gave two statements to the police. In her
first statement, Cruz did not say that the defendant pushed her.
In her second statement, Cruz stated that the defendant did, in
fact, push her.2 At trial, Cruz testified that the defendant
tried to push her, but said several times that she could not
remember if he actually touched her. Subsequently, the
prosecutor refreshed her memory with the second statement that
she gave to the police on the night of the incident. The
following exchange ensued:
the Commonwealth filed a nolle prosequi on that count prior to
trial.
2
Neither statement appears in the record.
3
Prosecutor: "Did he make physical contact with you?"
Cruz: "He pushed me, yeah, but it wasn't a push
that I fell."
Prosecutor: "Okay. But he touched you?"
Cruz: "Yes."
On the day of trial, before it began, defense counsel spoke
with Cruz about the incident that formed the basis for the
charge of assault and battery.3 Specifically, defense counsel
asked Cruz whether the defendant had pushed her. Cruz stated
that the defendant did not touch her on November 19, 2012, and
that he did not make a pushing or threatening motion towards
her. On recross-examination, defense counsel attempted to ask
Cruz about these statements. The Commonwealth objected, after
which the following discussion took place at sidebar:
Prosecutor: "This is definitely hearsay."
The court: "Yes, it's hearsay."
Defense counsel: "It's used to impeach her."
The court: "It's hearsay."
Prosecutor: "I mean if [defense counsel] wants to
take the stand and I can cross-examine her."
The court: "It's hearsay. It's not . . . I mean
(inaudible) as it's phrased."
3
The parties agreed to expand the record on appeal to
include the details of this conversation.
4
The judge sustained the Commonwealth's objection and instructed
the jury to disregard the question.
In her closing argument, defense counsel argued that Cruz's
"testimony [was] not really reliable" because she did not state
that the defendant touched her until the prosecutor refreshed
her recollection with one of her statements to police. The
Commonwealth argued in its closing argument that Cruz's
reliability was the central issue in the trial.4 As noted, the
jury found the defendant not guilty of assault and battery, but
guilty of the lesser included offense of assault and of
threatening to commit a crime.
Discussion. The defendant argues that a reversal is
required because the judge improperly prevented defense counsel
from eliciting impeachment evidence from Cruz on recross-
examination. The Commonwealth concedes that the judge erred,
but asserts that the error does not warrant a new trial. We
begin by addressing the appropriate standard of review.
The defendant claims that the appropriate standard of
review is prejudicial error because defense counsel preserved
the issue by informing the judge, at sidebar, that she intended
to offer the statement for impeachment purposes. The
4
Specifically, the prosecutor stated: "The question, is do
you believe her or don't you believe her? That's what this
trial is about."
5
Commonwealth argues that because defense counsel failed to take
exception to the judge's adverse ruling, our review is for a
substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. We disagree. The
"archaic" rule requiring an exception to preserve an issue for
appellate review was abolished by the adoption of rule 22 of the
Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, 378 Mass. 892 (1979).
Rule 22 provides that "[e]xceptions to rulings or orders of the
court are [now] unnecessary and . . . it is [now] sufficient
that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is
made or sought, makes known to the court the action which he
desires the court to take or his objection to the action of the
court . . . ." Here, defense counsel stated at sidebar that she
wanted to introduce the prior inconsistent statement at trial
for the purpose of impeaching the witness's testimony. See
Commonwealth v. Hollie, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 538, 541 n.3 (1999)
("[T]rial counsel need not achieve perfection in identifying
every impropriety . . . so long as the objection alerts the
judge to the grounds on which trial counsel objected").
Although defense counsel did not specifically object to the
judge's adverse ruling, the fact that she, in effect, made an
offer of proof as to the statement's admissibility put the judge
on notice of the purpose of the proffered statement and
satisfied the requirements of rule 22.5 See Commonwealth v.
5
The dissent contends that defense counsel's statements did
6
Jewett, 392 Mass. 558, 562 (1984), quoting from Commonwealth v.
Graziano, 368 Mass. 325, 330 (1975) (counsel is "not required to
make further efforts 'in the face of the judge's unequivocal
adverse ruling'"); Commonwealth v. Bonds, 445 Mass. 821, 828
(2006) ("We have consistently interpreted [rule 22] to preserve
appellate rights only when an objection is made in a form or
context that reveals the objection's basis"). See also
Commonwealth v. Ayala, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 592, 598 n.8 (1990).
"To rule otherwise would exalt form over substance."
Commonwealth v. Morin, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 780, 783 n.3 (2001),
quoting from Commonwealth v. Spear, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 583, 589
n.8 (1997). Accordingly, we review for prejudicial error.
Commonwealth v. Parent, 465 Mass. 395, 399 (2013).
not constitute an offer of proof and notes that an offer of
proof was required here "to preserve for appellate review the
issue of the degree of prejudice caused by the erroneous
ruling." Post at , quoting from Commonwealth v. Chase,
26 Mass. App. Ct. 578, 582 (1988). We disagree; an offer of
proof was not required here because the substance of the
evidence was "apparent from the context." Mass. G. Evid.
§ 103(a)(2) (2015). Because this was a single-witness case,
defense counsel's strategy at trial was to undermine Cruz's
credibility by impeaching her with her contradictory statements.
Defense counsel's question to Cruz -- "And I asked you whether
there was physical contact?" -- considered in light of the
defendant's trial strategy, makes clear the substance and
materiality of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Donovan, 17
Mass. App. Ct. 83, 88 (1983) (no offer of proof needed where
substance of testimony was apparent from defense counsel's
questions). Cf. Commonwealth v. Campbell, 51 Mass. App. Ct.
479, 482 (2001) (offer of proof required where "counsel's wide
open question may also have elicited inadmissible, irrelevant
evidence").
7
"An error is nonprejudicial only '[i]f . . . the conviction
is sure that the error did not influence the jury, or had but
very slight effect . . . .'" Commonwealth v. Flebotte, 417
Mass. 348, 353 (1994), quoting from Commonwealth v. Peruzzi, 15
Mass. App. Ct. 437, 445 (1983). "The inquiry cannot be merely
whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the
phase affected by the error." Commonwealth v. Peruzzi, supra at
445-446, quoting from Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750,
764-765 (1946). Rather, it is "whether the error itself had
substantial influence. If so, or if one is left in grave doubt,
the conviction cannot stand." Id. at 746, quoting from
Commonwealth v. Kotteakos, supra at 765.
First, we reject the Commonwealth's argument that although
the judge erred in ruling that defense counsel could not present
the impeachment evidence as it related to the assault and
battery charge, the judge had the discretion to prevent such
inquiry as it related to the threat to commit a crime charge
because it did not affect the elements of that offense. This
argument misses the point. The issue is the extent to which the
admission of an inconsistent statement would have affected the
victim's credibility. See Commonwealth v. Polk, 462 Mass. 23,
33 (2012) (where proffered evidence goes to victim's credibility
in case that rests "almost entirely" on victim's credibility, "a
judge's evidentiary decision assumes a constitutional
8
dimension"). Cf. Commonwealth v. Sherry, 386 Mass. 682, 693
(1982) (no abuse of discretion where excluded statement "was
offered only to impeach [the victim's] credibility generally and
not as to her description of the events in issue"). Here,
because Cruz's testimony was the only evidence presented for
both the assault and battery and the threat to commit a crime
charges, her "credibility was the sole issue at trial" and thus
was material. See Commonwealth v. Parent, supra at 401-402
(exclusion of prior inconsistent statement required reversal of
one of three charges because that charge was based solely on
victim's testimony).6
The Commonwealth also contends that in both instances, the
judge's limitation on defense counsel's ability to confront Cruz
with her inconsistent statement was not reversible error because
the statement was cumulative of other impeachment evidence
presented at trial, and defense counsel adequately undermined
Cruz's credibility on cross-examination. We disagree. The
right to confront witnesses is a fundamental right granted to
all persons who are accused of a criminal offense. See Olden v.
6
We acknowledge that Commonwealth v. Parent is
distinguishable from this case because there, the court vacated
only the conviction associated with the improperly excluded
statement. 465 Mass. at 396-397. As noted, however, because
here Cruz's credibility was the main issue at trial for both
charges, we conclude that the judge's error also prejudiced the
defendant with respect to the threat to commit a crime charge.
9
Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231 (1988); Commonwealth v. Tam Bui, 419
Mass. 392, 400 (1995). This right, found in the Sixth Amendment
to the United States Constitution as well as in art. 12 of the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, takes many forms.
Commonwealth v. Tam Bui, supra. In the context of a criminal
trial, "'a primary interest secured by [the confrontation
clause] is the right of cross-examination' . . . [which] is the
principal means by which the believability of a witness and the
truth of his testimony are tested." Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S.
308, 315-316 (1974), quoting from Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S.
415, 418 (1965). Impeachment with prior inconsistent statements
is one method of testing the witness's credibility. Indeed, it
is well established "that if a witness either upon his direct or
cross-examination testifies to a fact which is relevant to the
issue on trial the adverse party, for the purpose of impeaching
his testimony, may show that the witness has made previous
inconsistent or conflicting statements." Commonwealth v.
Parent, 465 Mass. at 399-400, quoting from Robinson v. Old
Colony St. Ry., 189 Mass. 594, 596 (1905). See Commonwealth v.
Polk, 462 Mass. at 33, quoting from Commonwealth v. Ruffen, 399
Mass. 811, 816 (1987) ("[O]ur 'Constitution requires that a
defendant be permitted to introduce evidence which may
materially affect the credibility of the [alleged] victim's
testimony'"). Moreover, where prior inconsistent statements
10
relate to a main issue at trial, the judge has "no discretion to
preclude their use for impeachment purposes." Commonwealth v.
Donnelly, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 189, 197 (1992). See Commonwealth
v. Moore, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 730, 736-737 (2001) (judge erred in
disallowing introduction of contradictory statements which could
have undermined witness's credibility). See also Commonwealth
v. West, 312 Mass. 438, 440 (1942).
Here, although the prosecutor and judge misconstrued the
proffered evidence as hearsay, defense counsel indicated that
she sought to introduce it for purposes of impeaching Cruz.
Indeed, the crux of the defense at trial was that Cruz was not
credible and that "evidence that her description [of the
defendant's actions] changed from one telling to the next is
probative of whether her story is true and whether it deserves
to be credited beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v.
Parent, 465 Mass. at 401. By limiting defense counsel's ability
to confront Cruz with the inconsistent statement, the judge
deprived the jury of an essential statement made by Cruz, which
could have assisted the jury in evaluating her credibility.
This limitation is particularly troublesome here because this
was a one-witness trial, the outcome of which necessarily
depended on Cruz's credibility. Moreover, Cruz's inconsistent
statements were not cumulative of other evidence as the
11
Commonwealth claims.7 To the contrary, we can think of no more
compelling impeachment evidence than statements such as the one
here that are diametrically opposed to the witness's in-court
testimony.8 In sum, because Cruz's testimony was the only
evidence presented at trial, her credibility was a critical
issue in the case. Accordingly, the judge's failure to allow
defense counsel to elicit Cruz's prior inconsistent statement
7
The dissent also concludes that this evidence was
cumulative of other impeachment evidence. See post at .
The cases relied upon by the dissent in reaching this
conclusion, however, are inapposite. In Commonwealth v. Clarke,
418 Mass. 207, 211-212 (1994), the Supreme Judicial Court held
that it was not error to deny defense counsel's request to admit
in evidence written inconsistent statements, which had already
been read in their entirety to the jury. Here, however, the
jury were prevented from even hearing about Cruz's statements to
defense counsel. Likewise, Commonwealth v. Aguiar, 78 Mass.
App. Ct. 193 (2010), is readily distinguishable. In that case,
the victim's mother testified that during a counselling session
at which she was present, the defendant admitted to sexually
assaulting the victim. Id. at 198. The defendant testified at
trial and denied making any such statements. Ibid. Defense
counsel then attempted to elicit testimony from the defendant's
wife that the defendant had not made admissions during the
counselling session, but was prevented from doing so. Id. at
205. We concluded that although error, the exclusion of the
wife's testimony was not prejudicial because it "would have
added little to her husband's denial," and the alleged admission
did not figure prominently into either side's theory of the
case. Id. at 206-207. Unlike in Aguiar, the entire case here
turned on whether the jury believed the defendant or Cruz.
Accordingly, the testimony defense counsel sought to elicit was
a critical piece of evidence, which was not cumulative of the
other impeachment evidence presented at trial.
8
Because, however, defense counsel was not allowed to
question Cruz about her inconsistent statement, it is unclear
whether Cruz would have adopted the statement she made to
defense counsel on the day of trial or repudiated it.
12
deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial. We
therefore reverse the judgments and set aside the verdicts.
So ordered.
MEADE, J. (dissenting). The majority concludes that the
defendant was denied a fair trial due to the judge's error on an
evidentiary matter. While I agree that the judge's ruling was
in error, I part company with the majority on whether the matter
was properly preserved as well as its view that the error
resulted in unfair prejudice to the defendant, or (because the
claim was not preserved) whether the error created a substantial
risk of a miscarriage of justice. Because I do not believe a
new trial is required, I respectfully dissent.
During cross-examination of the victim, defense counsel
impeached the victim with the fact that her initial report to
the police did not include her claim that the defendant pushed
her.1 Defense counsel also elicited from the victim that she
only testified to the occurrence of the push after her
recollection was refreshed. On redirect, the prosecutor
established that both of the victim's statements to the police
were made on the night of the incident.
On recross-examination, defense counsel changed tack, and
attempted to ask the victim about a conversation the two had had
earlier in the day before the trial began. After the victim
1
The victim gave the police two conflicting reports of what
occurred on the evening in question. In her first statement
(given at the scene), the victim did not mention being pushed by
the defendant, and in the second (given at the police station),
she stated that the defendant pushed her.
2
acknowledged the conversation, defense counsel asked: "And I
asked you whether there was physical contact?" At that point,
as described in the majority opinion, the prosecutor objected,
and a sidebar conference was held. There, the prosecutor
imposed his hearsay objection, and the judge agreed despite
defense counsel's explanation that she was trying to impeach the
victim. The judge ended the sidebar conference and ruled that
the question, "as it [was] phrased," sought a hearsay response.
The judge sustained the prosecutor's objection. Defense counsel
did not attempt to rephrase the question, said nothing more, and
returned to the subject of the victim's conflicting statements
to the police.
The majority concludes that even though defense counsel
"did not specifically object" to the judge's restriction on
cross-examination, the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation
clause claim was preserved for appellate review. For the
majority, this occurred when defense counsel "in effect" made an
offer of proof as to the purpose of the question. Having it
both ways, the majority also claims that an offer of proof was
not required. See ante at & note 5. I disagree.
Although the majority is correct regarding the impropriety of
the Commonwealth's antiquated notion that the defense counsel
should have taken an "exception" to the ruling, the issue was
nonetheless not preserved where defense counsel failed to object
3
when the judge prohibited the intended line of inquiry. All
counsel needed to do to preserve the issue for appeal was to
say, "Please note my objection," or at the very least, she could
have rephrased the question in accordance with the judge's
ruling. Instead, defense counsel silently walked away from the
side-bar conference and resumed her inquiry regarding the
victim's statements to the police.
The majority's conclusion that this issue was preserved is
fatally at odds with the contemporaneous objection rule and the
obvious and salutary purposes of the waiver doctrine, "a crucial
component of our legal system." Commonwealth v. Kilburn, 438
Mass. 356, 360 (2003). See Commonwealth v. Bly, 444 Mass. 640,
650 (2005) ("[T]he waiver doctrine . . . is a cornerstone of our
criminal justice system"). See also Commonwealth v. Amirault,
424 Mass. 618, 641 n.15 (1997) ("A constitutional right is, in
most cases . . . a right to insist that things be done in a
certain way, but it is not a right that they be done in that way
if the defendant does not choose to insist. . . . [A] right
that must be claimed is not denied if it is not claimed, and the
proceeding in which the claim is not made is, in that respect,
wholly free from error"). A simple objection would have
preserved the issue for appeal, but that did not occur.
Furthermore, defense counsel's statement that she wished to
impeach the victim did not constitute an offer of proof. "The
4
offer of proof requirement serves several purposes. An offer of
proof may assist the trial judge in making the correct ruling.
And the presence of an offer of proof in a record on appeal
enables an appellate court to determine whether an error was
made and, if so, how harmful it was to the defendant."
Commonwealth v. Chase, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 578, 581 (1988). See
Mass. G. Evid. § 103(a)(2) (2015). In general, an offer of
proof is not required when evidence is excluded on cross-
examination, because the offer must point to evidence "actually
available . . . , and the cross-examiner will often be unable to
state what the answer would have been if the question had been
allowed." Commonwealth v. Barnett, 371 Mass. 87, 95 (1976).
But this case does not fit within that general rubric. Defense
counsel was not only the proponent of the excluded evidence, but
she was also fully aware of the contents of her pretrial
exchange with the victim. In that posture, defense counsel was
uniquely and solely qualified to explain, in an offer of proof,
what she expected the victim's answer to have been had she been
permitted to ask the excluded question. Even though the "judge
did not need an offer of proof to make the correct ruling," such
an offer was required "to preserve for appellate review the
issue of the degree of prejudice caused by the erroneous
ruling." Commonwealth v. Chase, supra at 582. In fact,
contrary to the majority's opinion, this is not a case where
5
counsel "was not required to make further efforts 'in the face
of the judge's unequivocal adverse ruling.'" Commonwealth v.
Jewett, 392 Mass. 558, 562 (1984), quoting from Commonwealth v.
Graziano, 368 Mass. 325, 330 (1975).2 Indeed, the judge's ruling
expressly gave defense counsel the opportunity to rephrase the
question if not lodge an objection for the first time.
Finally, prior to the defendant's appeal being docketed in
this court, the parties stipulated to an expansion of the
record. As set out in the majority opinion, the parties agreed
that when asked prior to trial by defense counsel, the victim
denied that a battery occurred on the night in question. While
I remain puzzled as to the purpose of this document nestled in
the defendant's record appendix, or for that matter why the
Commonwealth joined the stipulation, what is clear is that it is
2
In support of its conclusion that the issue was preserved
and defense counsel, "in effect, made an offer of proof" by
telling the judge she sought to impeach the victim, the majority
relies on Commonwealth v. Jewett, 392 Mass. at 562, which is
inapposite. In Jewett, defense counsel explained in "detail"
how counsel proposed to call a witness and how that witness
would support the defendant's misidentification defense. Id. at
561. Even though the judge "cut off" the offer of proof, the
court held the judge was provided with sufficient information to
have been alerted to the relevance of the witness's testimony in
an alibi and mistaken identity case. Ibid. Furthermore, the
judge concluded the discussion by saving the defendant's rights.
Id. 561-562 & n.3. Here, in contrast, there was no effort to
discuss the significance of the testimony, let alone a detailed
effort. Rather, defense counsel said five words: "It's used to
impeach her," simply walked away, and the judge did not save any
rights.
6
not an appropriate substitute for an offer of proof.3 The
document merely recites what the parties agreed the content of
the conversation was, but it does not specify how the victim
would have answered the excluded question at trial. See
Commonwealth v. Fontes, 396 Mass. 733, 738 (1986) (vague and
generalized offers of proof are not adequate). See also
Commonwealth v. Donahue, 369 Mass. 943, 950-951, cert. denied,
429 U.S. 833 (1976) (after judge restricted cross-examination,
"it was not made apparent to the judge by defense counsel that
restriction of this line of questioning would substantially
prejudice the defendant, nor was it made clear how the answers
sought could be substantially helpful to the defendant's case").
More importantly, even if one could conclude that the victim
would have admitted rather than denied the contents of
conversation as reported to this court by the parties,4 none of
this was before the judge. Offers of proof are not properly
made for the first time on appeal; they need to be made during
trial, as they "may assist the trial judge in making the correct
ruling." Commonwealth v. Chase, 26 Mass. App. Ct. at 581. Like
a timely objection, an offer of proof at trial provides both the
3
The majority does not claim otherwise.
4
The majority likewise properly states that it unclear
whether the victim would have adopted the statement or
repudiated it. See ante at note 8.
7
judge and the prosecutor the opportunity to consider, and
perhaps rectify, their decisions and trial tactics while it is
still possible to do so. See Commonwealth v. Morris M., 70
Mass. App. Ct. 688, 697-698 (2007). Simply put, the defendant's
trial was the "main event," not merely a "tryout on the road" to
the appeal. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 90 (1977).
Appellate review should be based on what occurred at trial, not
what might have been. See Commonwealth v. Stout, 356 Mass. 237,
242 (1969); Commonwealth v. Chase, 433 Mass. 293, 297 (2001).
The issue was not preserved, and thus, this court's review
should be limited to determining whether the error created a
substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
To determine whether the judge's error created a
substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, and keeping in
mind that "[e]rrors of this magnitude are extraordinary events
and relief is seldom granted," Commonwealth v. Randolph, 438
Mass. 290, 297 (2002), we ask four questions. They are: "(1)
Was there error? (2) Was the defendant prejudiced by the error?
(3) Considering the error in the context of the entire trial,
would it be reasonable to conclude that the error materially
influenced the verdict? (4) May we infer from the record that
counsel's failure to object or raise a claim of error at an
earlier date was not a reasonable tactical decision?" Id. at
298 (citations omitted). "Only if the answer to all four
8
questions is 'yes' may we grant relief." Ibid. See
Commonwealth v. Russell, 439 Mass. 340, 345 (2003).
I agree with the majority that, as the Commonwealth
concedes, the judge's hearsay ruling was erroneous. Although
there was error, it neither unfairly prejudiced the defendant
nor materially influenced the verdict. What unfolded in this
case was the common but unfortunate reality of a domestic
violence victim being reluctant to testify against her abuser.
Her testimony on whether a battery occurred was vague and
contradictory. Her memory had to be refreshed before she
testified that the defendant pushed her. Defense counsel
thoroughly and effectively cross-examined the victim on her
contradictory statements to the police, and the necessity of the
prosecutor refreshing her recollection. Defense counsel
continued the same theme in her closing argument in which she
highlighted the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony,
argued that the victim was not credible, and suggested that she
was pressured by the prosecutor to provide the "right answer."
Defense counsel's closing argument relative to the making
threats charge focused on the vagueness of the defendant's
statement that he was "going to fuck you up," and at whom it was
directed since others were present. Counsel further argued
that: it was not a crime to use "angry words"; it was not
reasonable for the victim to believe the defendant was going to
9
carry out the threat; the victim did not summons the police; and
the victim and the defendant remained friends. Defense counsel
neither challenged the victim's credibility vis-à-vis the
threats charge, nor argued that the victim's equivocation on the
battery was a reason for finding the defendant not guilty of the
threats charge. Indeed, threatening to commit a crime does not
include any element of a physical touching. See Commonwealth v.
Sholley, 432 Mass. 721, 724-725 (2000).
Against this backdrop, all that remains to be determined is
whether the judge's ruling, which precluded an additional round
of impeachment on the occurrence of the battery, unfairly
prejudiced the defendant or whether the error materially
influenced the verdict. I answer both questions in the
negative. The most informative item -- as well as the highest
contributor to my conclusion -- is the glaring fact that the
jury only convicted the defendant of the lesser included charge
of assault. In other words, despite the judge's error, the jury
did not believe the victim's testimony on the occurrence of
battery. Any additional impeachment on this issue would have
been cumulative of what had been achieved on the assault and
battery charge, and it would not have been relevant to the
defense mounted and argued on the threats charge. See
Commonwealth v. Aguiar, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 193, 206-207 (2010)
(exclusion of cumulative impeachment evidence was error, but not
10
prejudicial). Cf. Commonwealth v. Clarke, 418 Mass. 207, 211-
213 (1994) (no abuse of discretion in exclusion of witness's
prior inconsistent written statements where they would have been
cumulative of statements read to jury and defendant impeached
witness with twenty prior convictions, including convictions of
crimes of dishonesty).5
Although I conclude the matter was not preserved, and no
risk of a miscarriage of justice resulted, I would reach the
same conclusion if it had been the subject of a proper objection
and offer of proof. In the end, the error did "not influence
the jury, or had but very slight effect." Commonwealth v.
Flebotte, 417 Mass. 348, 353 (1994) (quotation omitted). "If
the defendant had been entitled to a perfect trial, I would
comfortably side with the majority. But he was not."
5
The majority claims Commonwealth v. Aguiar, supra, is
inapposite because here "the testimony defense counsel sought to
elicit was a critical piece of evidence, which was not
cumulative of other impeachment evidence at trial." See ante at
note 7. However, as described above, it is abundantly clear
that the victim had already successfully been impeached on the
occurrence of the battery through her contradictory statements
to the police. Additional impeachment on the occurrence of the
battery through a pretrial conversation with defense counsel
would most certainly be cumulative. Similarly, the majority
finds fault in any comparison to Commonwealth v. Clarke, supra.
That case merely illustrates the idea of cumulative evidence in
a different context, which is why my citation to it is preceded
with a cf. signal. The majority is correct that the jury were
prevented from hearing about the victim's conversation with
defense counsel. However, the topic of that conversation was
the same as the topic of the victim's impeachment vis-à-vis her
statements to the police.
11
Commonwealth v. Ramsey, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 844, 852 (2010)
(Meade, J., dissenting), citing Commonwealth v. Lodge, 431 Mass.
461, 476 (2000). Because the defendant received a fair trial, I
respectfully dissent.