Com. v. Jansen

Commonwealth v. Jansen
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
March 2, 2011
459 Mass. 21

Rape, Joint Enterprise, Double jeopardy, Joint Venturer, Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA), Consent

The grand jury returned three indictments against the defendant for aggravated rape. The first indictment charged the defendant with aggravated rape for the sexual intercourse he committed with the alleged victim. The second and third indictments charged the defendant with aggravated rape for the sexual acts committed by his alleged joint venturers. At trial, the jury was not able to reach a unanimous verdict, so the judge declared a mistrial. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictments arguing that because the evidence presented at the trial was legally insufficient, double jeopardy barred a retrial. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion as to all of the charges except for the lesser included charge of rape in the first indictment. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Com v. Velazquez

Commonwealth v. Velazquez
Massachusetts Appeals Court
January 26, 2011
Docket No. 08-P-1042

Rape, Evidence, First complaint, Expert opinion, Witness, Expert

The defendant was convicted of four counts of forcible rape of a child.  On appeal, the defendant challenged whether the errors at trial, including errors concerning the first complaint doctrine to which the Commonwealth conceded, required a new trial.  The Appeals Court reversed the defendant’s convictions and ordered a new trial.

Com. v. Sullivan

Commonwealth v. Sullivan
January 24, 2011
78 Mass.App.Ct. 631

Juvenile Court, Jurisdiction. Superior Court, Transfer hearing, First Complaint, Rape

The defendant was convicted of one count of rape of a person under sixteen by force.  On appeal, the defendant challenged whether the Juvenile Court had jurisdiction, under G. L. c. 119, § 72A, to transfer the proceedings to Superior Court.  The defendant also raised the issue of whether his due process rights were violated by being prosecuted in the Superior Court instead of the Juvenile Court.  Lastly, the defendant argued that the trial judge erred in allowing the victim’s friend to testify about what the victim testified was the second complaint of the rape.  The judgment was affirmed.

Com v. Dargon, 7/29/10

Commonwealth v. Joshua Dargon, July 29, 2010

457 Mass. 387

Rape, Indecent Assault and Battery, Admissibility of Records challenged under G.L.c. 233 § 79, First Complaint, Closing Argument, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The defendant was found guilty of aggravated rape, indecent assault and battery on a person over the age of fourteen, assault and battery, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.  The defendant appeals his convictions claiming that evidence in written form that was part of the sexual assault evidence kit included statements made by the victim that should not have been allowed, that the prosecutor’s closing argument was improper, and that his counsel was ineffective.  The SJC affirmed the defendant’s convictions.

Com v Medeiros, SJC, 2/11/10

COMMONWEALTH v. MEDEIROS, FEBRUARY 11, 2010, SJC

Rape, Joint Enterprise, Inconsistent Verdicts

The defendant was convicted of rape of a child under the age of sixteen with force, aggravated rape and assault and battery. On appeal the he argued that the conviction of "aggravated rape by reason of joint enterprise" should be reversed because the jury simultaneously acquitted the co-defendant, the sole other member of the joint enterprise. The SJC agreed. The Court, while acknowledging that it is well established Massachusetts law that “mere inconsistency” in verdicts will not necessarily render a guilty verdict erroneous, found that the present case constituted an instance where the inconsistency was sufficiently troubling so as to require judicial intervention in the form of a reversal. Aggravated rape by reason of joint venture requires the united act of two or more persons to constitute an offense. The co-defendant’s acquittal reflected either a failure of the Commonwealth to prove the united act element of the crime or a misunderstanding by the jury as to the necessity of that proof. Under either explanation, the SJC found that reversal of the conviction was warranted.