83 Mass. App. Ct. 1132 (2013)
Summary
In 1992, a
fourteen-year old boy was charged with rape of a thirteen-year old girl. He
admitted to sufficient facts to warrant an adjudication of delinquency. The
judge placed him on probation for one year with the condition of no contact
with the victim outside of school. In 2011, the boy filed a motion to vacate
his admission and for a new trial. In his motion, he alleged that his father
forced him to admit to sufficient facts.
A District Judge allowed the motion
for new trial on the ground that the boy’s admission to sufficient facts was
not voluntary. In his affidavit, the boy claimed that he submitted to
sufficient facts out of fear and that his father’s concurrent lawsuit against
the city would prevent the juvenile from receiving a fair trial. The father’s
affidavit claimed to have forced the boy against his will to admit to
sufficient facts. The judge found that the presentence evaluation bolstered the
credibility of both the affidavits.
The Appeals Court found that the
boy was not coerced into making an admission to sufficient facts because there
was no indication in the presentence evaluation to support that the boy’s
father forced him to make the admission. To the contrary, the evaluation stated
that the boy’s parents were appropriately concerned about their son and that
they indicated a willingness to do what was best for him.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
the Appeals Court concluded that the motion judge erred in finding that the
boy’s admission was coerced. Therefore, the Court reversed the order to vacate
his admission and for a new trial.
Written 7/2013
