Commonwealth v. Robert Amaral
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
January 6, 2011
Docket No: 09-P-1683
Assault and Battery, Self-Defense, Evidence, Prior Violent Conduct
The Fall River Division of the District Court convicted the defendant of assault and battery following a bench trial. The defendant appealed, asserting that 1) the trial judge erred in restricting cross-examination regarding the victim's training and experience as a boxer and martial artist to establish that the victim was the first aggressor; and 2) the restitution order entered by the judge violates his Due Process rights because it was based on evidence that failed to comply with G.L. c. 233, sec 78G. Both issues were affirmed.
Facts
The defendant, along with other individuals (co-defendants not involved with this appeal), went to the victim's home and physically assaulted him with the intent of gaining money allegedly owed by the victim to the defendant. Counsel for co-defendant sought to question the victim and the victim's wife regarding the victim's prior experience with boxing and martial arts, aiming to support the inference that the victim was the first aggressor in accordance with Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 649 (2005). After the trial judge sustained the Commonwealth's object to these question, counsel for defendant sought to ask the victim's wife whether the victim was ever a boxer or fighter on cross-examination. Likewise, the trial judge sustained the Commonwealth's objection to this question. Counsel for the other co-defendant was allowed without objection to cross-examine the victim on whether he was a professional or amateur boxer, which he denied. After counsel further asked the victim about his martial arts experience, the trial court sustained the Commonwealth's objection.
For the restitution order, a restitution hearing was held before a different judge to determine the amount of restitution to be paid by the defendant. The judge determined the restitution amount of $4,000 by taking into consideration evidence presenting and calculating $3,600 for dental work, $209 for a broken cellular telephone, and $200 for broken furniture.
Issue 1: Did the District Court err in restricting these cross-examination questions?
The court looks towards Commonwealth v. Adjustant, which states that "where the identity of the first aggressor is in dispute and the victim has a history of violence...the trial judge has the discretion to admit evidence of specific acts of prior violent conduct that the victim is reasonably alleged to have initiated, to support the defendant's claim of self defense." Additionally, a defendant who intends to introduce such evidence is required to provide notice to the court and the Commonwealth of such intent and the specific evidence to be used.
The Appeals Court found that the trial judge was correct in his determination for two reasons. First, the trial judge was correct because the defendant failed to provide proper notice to the court and the Commonwealth regarding the intent and specific evidence to be used. Second, the question's at issue related only to the general participation in boxing and martial arts, a sporting activity. Sporting activities, even hard-hitting ones such as boxing or martial arts, are general activities and fail to meet the requirements of Adjutant.
Issue 2: Did the restitution order violate the defendant's Due Process rights?
Defendant principally objects to the dental costs because the submission of the dentist's estimate and note did not comply with G.L. c. 233, sec. 79G, which requires written notice of the claim be sent to the court and all parties not less than 10 days before the introduction of that evidence. The Appeals Court recognized while the dentist's note and estimate were not submitted in full accordance with these requirements, compliance with this statute is not the dispositive question in restitution hearings. The purpose of the statute is to create a hearsay exception for the admission of medical records. The Appeals Court concluded that the defedant's Due Process rights were not violated because the defendant was provided an opportunity to cross-examine the victim and submit his own evidence regardless of there was not exact compliance with the statute.
Judgments affirmed.
Prepared by AAO
