Commonwealth v. Keith Winfield, May 14, 2010
76 Mass. App. Ct. 716
The defendant was convicted of the forcible rape of a child under sixteen (two counts), indecent assault and battery of a child under fourteen, and assault and battery of a child causing serious bodily injury.
On appeal, the defendant argued that the judge erred by (1) denying his motion for required findings of not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth’s case; (2) permitting in evidence inflammatory photographs of the victim’s injuries; (3) permitting redaction of a portion of the defendant’s taped statement to the police; and (4) refusing to permit the defendant to impeach the victim’s mother for bias on her pending criminal charges. The Court held against the defendant in all appeal arguments and affirmed the convictions.
The defendant was the husband of the victim’s maternal aunt. The victim was left in the care of her aunt while the mother was at work. The defendant stated that he was left alone with the victim for forty-five minutes to an hour in the middle of the day, and that he and his wife were the only caretakers of the victim during the babysitting time period. The mother presented the victim to a doctor after discovering bleeding in the victim’s genital and anal area. Further medical investigation revealed multiple injuries to the victim’s entire body, and specific injuries to the genital and anal area consistent with impalement by a hot instrument.
Redaction of hearsay; police interview
At trial, the defendant suggested another individual (his wife) could have committed the perpetrated acts because she often was left alone with the victim, thus requiring a finding of not guilty.
The medical evidence corroborated a timeline for the injuries consistent with the defendant’s admitted time alone with the victim. The defendant also had the means to commit the crimes, a small curling iron found in the bathroom of the defendant’s home. Additionally, the defendant had displayed hostility toward the victim, which is relevant to motive.
In sum, the Court concluded that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, permitted a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the indictments.
Redaction of hearsay; police interview
During the trial, a redacted version of the defendant’s interview at the police station was played for the jury. The redacted portion pertained to the defendant’s statement that his wife told him that the victim’s mother said she had not changed the victim’s diaper before bringing the victim to the defendant’s house the morning of the injuries. The comment was redacted as self-serving, totem pole hearsay, and therefore inadmissible. The defendant argued that the redacted portion should have been admitted under the doctrine of completeness to prevent the prosecution from presenting a fragmented and misleading version of events to the jury.
The Court disagreed. The doctrine of completeness permits the opposing party to add omitted/redacted portions to give context to the statement, meaning the redacted portions must “qualify or explain” previously introduced statements in order to be admitted in evidence. In the current case, none of the redacted portions of the recorded police interview explained or qualified the part of the interview introduced by the Commonwealth. Since all redacted portions were out-of-court statements offered for their truth, those statements should be excluded as hearsay.
Photograph evidence of the victim’s injuries
The defendant argued that the judge abused his discretion in allowing color photographs of the victim’s injuries into evidence because the photos were of marginal value to the issue at trial, but had significant prejudicial effect.
If the photographs possess evidential value on a material matter, they are not rendered inadmissible solely because of the graphic subject matter or its inflammatory effect on the jury. The Court held that the contested photographs of burns and bruises of the victim were probative of issues including penetration, force, intent, and opportunity. Furthermore, the jury instructions were sufficient to override the photographs’ prejudicial effects.
Pending charges against victim’s mother; bias
After the defendant’s indictment, a complaint was issued against the mother on an unrelated matter. At trial, the defendant sought to question the mother about the pending complaint to show bias and motivation to cooperate with the police in order to gain favorable treatment for her pending charges. The trial judge’s voir dire of the mother failed to show bias. Additionally, the mother’s story had not changed in the period prior to or after the complaint was issued against the mother. The Court concluded the judge ruled correctly that the criminal complaint was not probative of bias, and therefore not appropriate for cross-examination.
The Court held against the defendant in all appeal arguments and affirmed the convictions.
76 Mass. App. Ct. 716
The defendant was convicted of the forcible rape of a child under sixteen (two counts), indecent assault and battery of a child under fourteen, and assault and battery of a child causing serious bodily injury.
On appeal, the defendant argued that the judge erred by (1) denying his motion for required findings of not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth’s case; (2) permitting in evidence inflammatory photographs of the victim’s injuries; (3) permitting redaction of a portion of the defendant’s taped statement to the police; and (4) refusing to permit the defendant to impeach the victim’s mother for bias on her pending criminal charges. The Court held against the defendant in all appeal arguments and affirmed the convictions.
The defendant was the husband of the victim’s maternal aunt. The victim was left in the care of her aunt while the mother was at work. The defendant stated that he was left alone with the victim for forty-five minutes to an hour in the middle of the day, and that he and his wife were the only caretakers of the victim during the babysitting time period. The mother presented the victim to a doctor after discovering bleeding in the victim’s genital and anal area. Further medical investigation revealed multiple injuries to the victim’s entire body, and specific injuries to the genital and anal area consistent with impalement by a hot instrument.
Redaction of hearsay; police interview
At trial, the defendant suggested another individual (his wife) could have committed the perpetrated acts because she often was left alone with the victim, thus requiring a finding of not guilty.
The medical evidence corroborated a timeline for the injuries consistent with the defendant’s admitted time alone with the victim. The defendant also had the means to commit the crimes, a small curling iron found in the bathroom of the defendant’s home. Additionally, the defendant had displayed hostility toward the victim, which is relevant to motive.
In sum, the Court concluded that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, permitted a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the indictments.
Redaction of hearsay; police interview
During the trial, a redacted version of the defendant’s interview at the police station was played for the jury. The redacted portion pertained to the defendant’s statement that his wife told him that the victim’s mother said she had not changed the victim’s diaper before bringing the victim to the defendant’s house the morning of the injuries. The comment was redacted as self-serving, totem pole hearsay, and therefore inadmissible. The defendant argued that the redacted portion should have been admitted under the doctrine of completeness to prevent the prosecution from presenting a fragmented and misleading version of events to the jury.
The Court disagreed. The doctrine of completeness permits the opposing party to add omitted/redacted portions to give context to the statement, meaning the redacted portions must “qualify or explain” previously introduced statements in order to be admitted in evidence. In the current case, none of the redacted portions of the recorded police interview explained or qualified the part of the interview introduced by the Commonwealth. Since all redacted portions were out-of-court statements offered for their truth, those statements should be excluded as hearsay.
Photograph evidence of the victim’s injuries
The defendant argued that the judge abused his discretion in allowing color photographs of the victim’s injuries into evidence because the photos were of marginal value to the issue at trial, but had significant prejudicial effect.
If the photographs possess evidential value on a material matter, they are not rendered inadmissible solely because of the graphic subject matter or its inflammatory effect on the jury. The Court held that the contested photographs of burns and bruises of the victim were probative of issues including penetration, force, intent, and opportunity. Furthermore, the jury instructions were sufficient to override the photographs’ prejudicial effects.
Pending charges against victim’s mother; bias
After the defendant’s indictment, a complaint was issued against the mother on an unrelated matter. At trial, the defendant sought to question the mother about the pending complaint to show bias and motivation to cooperate with the police in order to gain favorable treatment for her pending charges. The trial judge’s voir dire of the mother failed to show bias. Additionally, the mother’s story had not changed in the period prior to or after the complaint was issued against the mother. The Court concluded the judge ruled correctly that the criminal complaint was not probative of bias, and therefore not appropriate for cross-examination.
The Court held against the defendant in all appeal arguments and affirmed the convictions.
