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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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

SJC-12349

COMMONWEALTH vs. KENYA DABNEY.

Suffolk. November 6, 2017. - February 13, 2018.

Present: Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, & Cypher, JJ.

Trafficking. Deriving Support from Prostitution. Rape.

Assault and Battery. Jury and Jurors. Practice, Criminal, 

Jury and jurors, Voir dire, Instructions to jury.

Evidence, Impeachment of credibility. Witness, 

Impeachment.

Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court 

Department on February 4, 2015.

The cases were tried before Linda E. Giles, J.

The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for 

direct appellate review.

David Rangaviz, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for 

the defendant.

Nicholas Brandt, Assistant District Attorney, for the 

Commonwealth.

Emma Quinn-Judge & Zoraida Fernandez, for Massachusetts 

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers & others, amici curiae, 

submitted a brief.
2

GAZIANO, J. The defendant was convicted by a Superior 

Court jury of human trafficking, deriving support from 

prostitution, rape, and two counts of assault and battery. On 

appeal, he argues that, during voir dire, the judge improperly

prevented his attorney from asking members of the venire whether 

they would expect an innocent defendant to testify. He also 

contends that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain 

a conviction of human trafficking, and that the judge's 

instruction to the jury regarding the human trafficking charge 

was inadequate. The defendant claims further that the judge 

erred in allowing the introduction of certain records and then 

retroactively ordering them to be redacted, which prevented

defense counsel from using the records for impeachment purposes.

We conclude that the judge did not abuse her discretion in 

limiting defense counsel's questioning during voir dire, the 

evidence against the defendant was legally sufficient, the jury 

instructions were proper, and there was no abuse of discretion 

in the judge's evidentiary ruling. Accordingly, we affirm the

convictions.1

 

1 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the 

Massachusetts Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National 

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Charles Hamilton 

Houston Institute for Race and Justice, and Criminal Justice 

Institute.
3

1. Background. a. Facts. We recite the facts the jury 

could have found, reserving certain details for later 

discussion.

i. Commonwealth's case. The victim and the defendant met 

in approximately June, 2014, and started dating a few months

later. The two began living together in a house in Chelsea 

belonging to "Uncle Otis," a friend of the defendant; they also

sometimes stayed in a house in Revere. Around the time the 

victim and the defendant started dating, the defendant 

encouraged the victim to begin prostituting herself. He told 

her that it "would be good money because [she] was a beautiful 

person." At some point before she met the defendant, the victim 

had engaged in prostitution in Chelsea.2

Shortly after the defendant's suggestion, the victim began 

prostituting herself on Pearl Street in Chelsea. In exchange 

for a cash payment, she would perform sex acts in her clients'

vehicles. Together, the defendant and the victim determined the

prices she would charge for various acts. The defendant would 

accompany the victim to Pearl Street and would wait on the 

street or at a nearby bar for her to emerge from a client's 

automobile. The victim gave all the money she earned from these 

 

2 The record does not indicate any time frame for the 

victim's prior prostitution.
4

encounters to the defendant. He used the money to buy drugs and 

alcohol for them to share.

At some point after the victim had been engaging in 

prostitution, the defendant told the victim about a Web site 

called Backpage that they could use to advertise her services. 

The two used the victim's personal electronic mail address and 

telephone number to create a Backpage account. They then posted

advertisements, which included photographs of the victim's body,

(without showing her face), a written description of her body, 

an "alias," and contact information. The defendant took the 

photographs. The victim and the defendant together determined 

the alias that the victim would use and wrote the description of 

her body. The defendant used proceeds from the victim's 

prostitution to buy a prepaid credit card that they used to pay 

for the Backpage advertisements.

The defendant told the victim that she was to notify him 

every time she received a telephone call from a client in 

response to the Backpage advertisement. He also occasionally 

listened to the calls. Often, these clients would meet the 

victim at the house in Revere where she and the defendant 

sometimes stayed. The defendant would wait in another room 

while the victim was with a client "in case [she] needed to 

scream for him." This arrangement continued for several months. 

At the time, the victim also was working at a fast food 
5

restaurant; the defendant was unemployed. In November or 

December, 2014, after a gap in their relationship "for a day or 

two," the defendant asked the victim to stop using the Backpage

site. She did so and also changed her telephone number.

At some point during the week of December 7, 2014, the 

defendant punched the victim in the face because she had not 

given him all of the money she had earned from prostitution. 

The victim had a black eye, but did not seek medical treatment. 

She did not call the police because the defendant "apologized 

and said it wouldn't happen again."

Approximately one week later, on December 13, 2014, the 

defendant hit the victim's head with his open hand. Later that 

night, the victim, the defendant, the victim's mother, and Uncle 

Otis were at the house in Revere; the defendant and the victim 

used cocaine and heroin. Sometime after midnight, the victim 

and the defendant went to a bar, where he told her that she was 

"on [her] own." The victim understood this to mean that they 

were no longer in a relationship, and left the bar.

The victim then went to Pearl Street to prostitute herself.

She saw two clients. Thereafter, she encountered the defendant 

on the part of Pearl Street where he ordinarily had waited for 

her when she met with clients. The defendant yelled at her and 

demanded to know why it had taken her so long to return. She 

responded, "why are you over here, you said I was on my own."
6

The defendant punched the victim in the face, threw her to 

the ground, and kicked her, while continuing to yell. He 

grabbed her and told her that they were going home. He insisted

that the victim was lying to him about the clients she had met 

with that night and the amount of money she had received. He 

continued to punch her, throw her against walls, choke her, and 

beat her, as he dragged her toward a taxicab stand. The victim 

continued to protest that she thought their relationship had 

ended. The defendant responded, "you're going with me and 

that's it."

As the victim and the defendant were entering a taxicab, 

two police officers arrived in response to a 911 call that a 

neighbor had placed; the neighbor had been awakened when he 

heard a woman screaming and reported that two women were 

fighting.

3 As the officers approached, the defendant held a 

switchblade to the victim's side and told her that if she said 

anything to the police officers about the incident, he would 

kill her. The officers interviewed the victim and the defendant 

separately, but the victim was afraid and did not tell them what 

had happened. The victim said that she had been fighting with 

another woman and that she did not want to press charges. The 

 

3 The caller did not see the faces of the people involved in 

the fight. A bystander also reported that she heard a woman 

screaming, but did not see the people involved.
7

officer interviewing the victim noticed that she had a bruise 

under her eye that appeared to be "several days old and yellow," 

but did not observe any fresh injuries. The officers did not 

see anyone else nearby. They left, and the victim and the 

defendant took a taxicab back to Uncle Otis's house. The 

victim's mother was staying at the house that night and inquired 

about the victim's injuries. Because the defendant was in the 

room when she did so, the victim lied and said that she had been

"jumped" by two women.

After the victim's mother had gone to bed, the defendant 

pushed the victim into the bathroom and pulled off her pants and 

underwear, while the victim repeatedly protested. The defendant 

forced his hands into her vagina. He said that he was going to 

kill her with his switchblade, and "tried" to stab her side and 

her leg until the knife broke. He then ordered the victim to 

sit on the living room couch and continued to hit her. When the 

victim asked to share some of the cigarette the defendant was 

smoking, he put the cigarette out on her face, again accused her 

of lying, and repeated that he was going to kill her.

The victim managed to run into the bedroom where her mother

was sleeping, and woke her mother up. The victim was "crying 

very hard." Her mother then confronted the defendant. He 

responded that he no longer wanted to be in a relationship with 

the victim, and asked if she was going to call the police. The 
8

victim and her mother did not call the police, because they did 

not want Uncle Otis to "get in trouble and lose his house." The 

victim slept that night in the same room with her mother.

When the victim woke up the next morning, the defendant and 

his belongings were gone. Her mother arranged for a relative to 

take the victim to the hospital.

4 While the victim was at the 

hospital, an officer of the Chelsea police department 

interviewed her. He noticed that the victim had a swollen eye, 

scratches and marks on her neck, puncture wounds on her leg, an 

abrasion near her hip, and a burn mark on her face. The officer

subsequently arrested the defendant.5

ii. Defendant's case. The defendant called a nurse who 

served as a medical consultant to explain the contents of the 

victim's hospital records. The nurse had not treated the victim 

and had not met with her prior to testifying. The nurse 

explained that, based on the victim's computerized tomography 

(CT) scan, the doctors had concluded that the victim was 

suffering from swelling on the frontal bone of her skull, but 

 

4 The victim received treatment for her injuries but 

declined a sexual assault examination, saying that she was in 

too much pain.

5 The defendant tried to telephone the victim several times 

after the assault, but she did not answer. While the defendant 

was in pretrial detention, however, the victim sent him a letter 

saying, "what was done was not my doing." The letter also asked 

the defendant to telephone her and said that she had never loved 

anyone as much as she loved him.
9

had no brain injury. The victim also had a deformity or chip 

fracture of her jaw bone, without swelling or bruising in that 

area. The victim had swelling, bruising, and internal bleeding 

on her forehead, near her eyes, and on her nose and chin, and 

complained of lower back pain. The records indicated that the 

victim told the treating physicians that she had not lost 

consciousness during the incident, and contained no indication 

of any stab wounds or treatment for stab wounds. The hospital 

records stated that the victim had a burn on her cheek, but 

there was no indication that she was treated for a cigarette 

burn. The nurse opined that the mark on the victim's cheek 

"could" be a cigarette burn, but that it did not look like the 

cigarette burns she had seen in her own experience; based on the 

photographs taken by the investigating officer, the mark was 

superficial, had an irregular shape, and looked several days 

old. At the hospital, the victim had complained of blurred 

vision, but her vision test revealed entirely normal results 

with textbook acuity.

b. Procedural history. A grand jury returned indictments 

against the defendant for eleven charges. He was indicted on

charges of human trafficking, in violation of G. L. c. 265, 

§ 50 (a), and deriving support from prostitution, in violation 

of G. L. c. 272, § 7, for the period from September 1 to 

December 14, 2014. He also was indicted on two counts of 
10

assault and battery, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13A. For 

the incident on the evening of December 13 and the early morning 

hours of December 14, 2014, the defendant was indicted on 

charges of rape, G. L. c. 265, § 22; assault and battery by 

means of a dangerous weapon (a lit cigarette and a knife), G. L. 

c. 265, § 15A; assault by means of a dangerous weapon (a knife), 

G. L. c. 265, § 15B (b); strangulation, G. L. c. 265, § 15D (a);

assault and battery, G. L. c. 265, § 13A; and intimidation of a 

witness, G. L. c. 268, § 13B.

The defendant moved unsuccessfully to have the human 

trafficking charge dismissed, arguing that the Commonwealth did 

not present sufficient evidence to the grand jury, and that the

human trafficking statute was unconstitutionally vague as 

applied to him.

Ultimately, the jury found the defendant guilty of human 

trafficking, deriving support from prostitution, rape, and two 

counts of assault and battery, one for the punching incident 

between December 1 and 10, 2014, and one for the events on the 

evening of December 13 and the early morning hours of December 

14, 2014. He was acquitted of the other charges. The defendant 

timely appealed, and we allowed his petition for direct 

appellate review.

2. Discussion. The defendant argues that the judge erred 

in prohibiting defense counsel from asking most of the members 
11

of the venire whether they would expect an innocent defendant to 

testify, because the question was proper and useful in revealing

juror bias. The defendant also maintains that the evidence was 

not sufficient to support his conviction of human trafficking

because there was no indication that he forced or coerced the 

victim into prostitution, and that the judge's instruction on 

that offense was insufficient to convey to the jury the 

statute's proper meaning. In addition, the defendant argues

that the judge erred in denying his motion to use Backpage 

records to impeach the victim, and in ordering that the records 

be redacted in such a way that they could not be used for 

impeachment purposes, even though the Commonwealth earlier had 

introduced unredacted copies of the records.

a. Questioning of the venire on the defendant's right not 

to testify. i. Empanelment. At trial, the defendant moved for 

attorney-conducted voir dire. The judge permitted the attorneys 

the "opportunity to ask reasonable follow-up questions" based on 

anything "see[n], hear[d], or read about the juror." The judge 

began jury selection by asking the entire venire several 

questions, including three that are statutorily required:

(1) "Do any of you not understand that in a criminal case, 

the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty?";

(2) "Do any of you not understand that in a criminal case, 

the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant is 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?"; and
12

(3) "Do any of you not understand that in a criminal case, 

the defendant does not have to present any evidence in his 

or her own behalf?"

See G. L. c. 234A, § 67A. Thereafter, at sidebar, the judge 

questioned each potential juror individually. One of the 

questions she posed was, "The defendant in a criminal trial has 

the absolute right not to testify. If this defendant chooses 

not to testify, would you hold that against him in any way?" 

After the judge finished her questioning, she allowed the 

attorneys to pose follow-up questions.

In response to the judge's question on a defendant's right 

not to testify, the first member of the venire said he would not 

hold it against the defendant if the defendant chose not to 

testify. Defense counsel then asked, "The judge asked you about 

the possibility of the defendant not testifying. If someone was 

innocent, would you expect that they would testify or would not 

testify?" The juror responded, "No, either way." When that 

juror stepped away, the judge commented that defense counsel had 

asked redundant questions, and told him "not [to] ask the same 

question that [she] ask[ed]." The first juror was empanelled.

In response to the same question from the judge, the second 

potential juror also indicated that he would not hold it against 

the defendant if the defendant chose not to testify. Defense 

counsel then asked, "The judge mentioned that the defendant has

the right not to testify. Would you expect that if someone was 
13

innocent, that they would testify or not necessarily?" The 

juror responded "Well, he don't have the right to, so he don't 

have to testify." When that juror stepped away, the judge noted 

that defense counsel's question was redundant. Counsel 

responded that a colleague had told him that the phrasing he had 

employed was a useful addition because a potential juror might 

not fully comprehend the judge's more abstract question. The 

judge said that she would "engage in an experiment" and also 

would permit defense counsel to ask whether the juror would 

expect an innocent defendant to testify, in order to determine 

if jurors gave different responses to the two questions. The 

second juror was empanelled.

The next three potential jurors were excused for cause 

before defense counsel had an opportunity to pose his version of 

the question on a defendant's right not to testify. In response 

to the judge's question, the sixth juror stated that he would 

not hold it against the defendant if the defendant chose not to 

testify. Defense counsel then asked, "Would you expect that a 

defendant who is innocent would testify, whether he has to or 

not?" and the juror responded, "No, not necessarily." The juror 

was empanelled.

The seventh potential juror also responded to the judge's 

question by saying that she would not hold it against the 
14

defendant if he did not testify. During defense counsel's 

subsequent questioning, the following exchange took place:

Defense counsel: "Regardless of whether the defendant 

has a right to testify or not, would you expect that 

an innocent defendant would testify?"

The juror: "I would think, but I don't -- I'd be open 

to hearing or not hearing. I don't know if that makes 

sense."

The judge: "I'm not sure I understand."

The juror: "You're asking if he is claiming he's 

innocent --"

The judge: "You have to keep your voice up a little 

bit."

The juror: "Oh, I'm sorry. If you're claiming that 

he is innocent and he did testify, do I have -- I'm 

sorry."

The judge: "Put the question to her again, I think 

she's confused by the question."

Defense counsel: "If he was innocent, would you 

expect that he probably would testify?"

The juror: "Yes."

Defense counsel: "How come?"

The juror: "Just to defend himself and he would have 

probable cause."

The judge asked the potential juror to step away, and then noted 

that she had realized why she initially did not like counsel's 

question. She commented that it was a "commitment question," in 

that it asked jurors to commit to a particular position by 

planting in a juror's mind the idea that the defendant was 
15

actually innocent and therefore should testify. She explained 

that, although a defendant is presumed innocent, "[t]he issue is 

whether [the Commonwealth] can prove [its] case beyond a 

reasonable doubt. Innocence is not an issue in this case."6 The 

judge did not permit defense counsel thereafter to ask his form 

of the question, but did offer to excuse the juror for cause. 

Counsel agreed that the juror should be excused, and asked the 

judge to note his objection.

ii. Attorney conducted voir dire. "[P]art of the 

guarantee of a defendant's right to an impartial jury is an 

adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors." Morgan v. 

Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 729 (1992). See G. L. c. 234A, § 67A 

(voir dire is designed "to learn whether the juror is related to 

either party or has any interest in the case, or has expressed 

or formed an opinion, or is sensible of any bias or prejudice"). 

The scope of voir dire, however, "is in the sound discretion of 

the trial judge and will be upheld absent a clear showing of 

abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Gray, 465 Mass. 330, 338, 

 

6 See Anderson v. State, 161 Ga. App. 816, 816 (1982) (trial 

judge did not err in declining to permit defense attorney to ask 

whether jurors "would still expect the defendant to take the 

stand and testify as to his innocence" even if they knew that 

defendant did not have burden of proving his innocence, because 

question "sought to have the jurors prejudge how they might view 

the defendant's failure to testify").
16

cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 628 (2013), quoting Commonwealth v. 

Perez, 460 Mass. 683, 689 (2011).

Prior to 2014, judges had discretion not to permit

attorneys to engage in direct questioning of potential jurors. 

See Commonwealth v. Gee, 6 Cush. 174, 178 (1850) ("The counsel 

of a party has no right personally to interrogate the jurors, 

with a view of showing their bias or prejudice by facts drawn 

out by a cross-examination, or something very like it"). In 

2014, however, the Legislature amended G. L. c. 234, § 28, such 

that, upon request, attorneys and self-represented parties in 

the Superior Court now have the right to question potential 

jurors during voir dire. See St. 2014, c. 254, § 2.7 Although 

"the empanelment process takes somewhat longer when attorneys 

participate in voir dire, the consensus is that [attorney 

participation in voir dire] has improved the process of jury 

selection. As a result, judges and attorneys should have 

greater confidence that the jurors who are ultimately empaneled 

are more likely to be impartial."8 Supreme Judicial Court 

 

7 In 2016, this section was recodified as G. L. c. 234A, 

§ 67D. St. 2016, c. 36, § 4.

8 Our committee on juror voir dire, which was convened soon 

after the statute was enacted, observed that forty-four per cent 

of Superior Court judges had been permitting some form of 

attorney-conducted voir dire prior to the enactment, and "while 

[G. L. c.] 254 would push attorney involvement further, it could 

be implemented without radical changes to the judges' current 
17

Committee on Juror Voir Dire, Final Report to the Justices, at 5

(July 12, 2016) (SJC Committee Report). Nonetheless, while

trial judges must permit attorney-conducted voir dire upon 

request, the scope of such questioning remains in the discretion 

of the judge. See, e.g., G. L. c. 234A, § 67D (2) ("The court 

may impose reasonable limitations upon the questions and the 

time allowed during such examination, including, but not limited 

to, requiring pre-approval of the questions").

To implement the statutory requirement, the Superior Court 

adopted Standing Order 1-15 (effective Feb. 2, 2015), which

"fully preserves the discretionary authority of the trial judge 

with respect to the examination and selection of jurors in each 

case . . . while permitting attorneys and self-represented 

parties a fair opportunity to participate in voir dire so as to 

identify inappropriate bias." The standing order requires

judges, in deciding which questions to allow, to give "due 

regard" to the goals of selecting fair and impartial jurors, 

conducting jury selection with "reasonable expedition," and 

"respecting the dignity and privacy of each potential juror." 

Id. See SJC Committee Report, supra at 11.

 

approaches to jury selection in civil and criminal cases." 

Supreme Judicial Court Committee on Juror Voir Dire, Final 

Report to the Justices, at 3 (July 12, 2016) (SJC Committee 

Report).
18

Superior Court Rule 6, which was put in place after 

Standing Order 1-15, provides guidance to judges when making 

determinations regarding attorney-conducted voir dire. A trial 

judge may "impose reasonable restrictions on the subject matter, 

time, or method of attorney or party voir dire." Rule 6(3)(f)

of the Rules of the Superior Court. Pursuant to rule 6(3)(e),

attorneys may not ask questions that (1) are "framed in terms of 

how the juror would decide this case (prejudgment), including 

hypotheticals that are close/specific to the facts of this 

case"; (2) "seek to commit juror(s) to a result, including, 

without limitation, questions about what evidence would cause 

the juror(s) to find for the attorney's client or the party"; 

(3) have "no substantial purpose other than to argue an 

attorney's or party's case or indoctrinate"; (4) concern the

outcome of "prior cases where the person has served as a juror, 

including the prior vote(s) of the juror or the verdict of the 

entire jury"; or (5) "specifically reference what is written on 

a particular juror's confidential juror questionnaire" while in 

the presence of other jurors.

By contrast, trial judges "should generally approve a 

reasonable number of questions" concerning (1) "the prospective 

juror's background and experience pertinent to the issues 

expected to arise in the case"; (2) "preconceptions or biases 

relating to the identity of the parties or the nature of the 
19

claims or issues expected to arise in the case";9 (3) the juror's

"willingness and ability to accept and apply pertinent legal 

principles as instructed"; and (4) "information on subjects that 

controlling authority has identified as preferred subjects of 

inquiry, even if not absolutely required." Rule 6(3)(c) of the 

Rules of the Superior Court. Further, if a party or attorney 

wishes to inquire about potential jurors' political views, 

voting patterns, party preferences, or religious beliefs or 

affiliations, the litigant first must explain to the judge's 

satisfaction "how the inquiry is relevant to the issues, may 

affect the juror's impartiality, or may assist in the proper 

exercise of peremptory challenges." Rule 6(3)(d) of the Rules 

of the Superior Court.

There is no dispute in this case that defense counsel 

sought to ask his particular form of the question on the 

defendant's right not to testify in an effort to reveal juror 

bias, an entirely appropriate line of inquiry. That the 

question was well intentioned and directed to proper subject 

matter, however, does not necessarily mean that the judge's 

 

9 Superior Court Rule 6 explicitly encourages judges to 

consider whether proposed questions or methods may assist in 

identifying explicit or implicit bias. Rule 6(3)(g) of the 

Rules of the Superior Court. This court also has endorsed "Best 

Practices for Jury Selection" proposed by the Committee on Juror 

Voir Dire, that encourage the same considerations. See Best 

Practices For Jury Selection (July 20, 2016); SJC Committee 

Report, supra at 11.
20

decision not to permit it was error. In addition to discretion 

to exclude inappropriate topics, judges have broad discretion 

with regard to the specific question or language used to probe 

appropriate subject matter. See Addendum A(1) to the Rules of 

the Superior Court ("The trial judge may, in the exercise of 

discretion, require attorneys and self-represented parties to 

submit the specific language of the proposed questions for preapproval").10 This discretion encompasses a judge's ability to

 

10 There is broad consensus among courts in other 

jurisdictions that judges have discretion over the wording, and 

not merely the subject matter, of voir dire questions. See, 

e.g., Kasi v. Angelone, 300 F.3d 487, 509 (4th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 537 U.S. 1025 (2002) ("trial court has broad discretion 

in conducting the voir dire of the jury, and particularly in 

phrasing the questions to be asked" [quotations omitted and 

citation]); State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 171-173 (2004), cert. 

denied, 546 U.S. 848 (2005) (trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in sustaining State attorney's objections to phrasing 

of defense counsel's statement during voir dire that "the 

presumption of innocence says you have to presume [the 

defendant] innocent, perfectly clean slate as he sits here" and 

"the jurors have to presume an accused person completely

innocent of any wrongdoing," as judge provided defense counsel 

sufficient other questions to probe jurors' views regarding 

presumption of innocence [emphasis in original]); Dingle v. 

State, 361 Md. 1, 13 (2000) ("the trial court has broad 

discretion in the conduct of voir dire, most especially with 

regard to the scope and the form of the questions propounded"); 

State v. Parks, 324 N.C. 420, 423 (1989) ("while counsel may 

diligently inquire into a juror's fitness to serve, the extent 

and manner of that inquiry rests within the trial court's 

discretion"); Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez, 189 S.W.3d 743, 755 

(Tex. 2006) ("Determining whether jurors' answers assume or 

ignore the evidence disclosed to them turns on the courtroom 

context, and perhaps the looks on their faces. So, too, does 

the import of counsel's questions, and whether as phrased they 

seek external information or a preview of a potential verdict. 
21

prevent posing questions that are likely to confuse, misinform, 

or mislead the jury because of their format or wording.

We conclude that the judge did not abuse her discretion in 

precluding defense counsel from asking the particular question

he sought to use. See L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 

n.27 (2014). That some potential jurors may expect a defendant 

to testify if he or she were innocent does not, without more,

mean that they cannot or will not put aside that expectation and 

honor the defendant's rights after being properly instructed. 

Although the defendant correctly notes that counsel is not 

limited to questions that probe a juror's willingness to follow 

directions, and may inquire into a jurors' beliefs on relevant 

issues, a potential juror's expectation that a defendant will 

testify if innocent is often based on a lack of knowledge of the

criminal justice system rather than on steadfast beliefs. See 

Hopson v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 144, 153 (2008) ("To be 

sure, it is not surprising that jurors would want or expect a 

defendant to testify; any conscientious juror naturally would 

want all the help he or she could get in deciding a case. It 

should not be grounds for a per se exclusion, therefore, when 

prospective jurors on voir dire indicate their wants or 

expectations in this respect" [quotations and citation 

 

The trial judge is in a better position to evaluate the 

reasonableness of both aspects -- the question and the answer").
22

omitted]). Because the wording of defense counsel's question 

could be seen by some potential jurors as asking the juror to 

disregard the defendant's constitutional right not to testify, 

the question did not properly elicit information that could 

demonstrate the juror's ability to be fair and impartial.

The possibly confusing nature of counsel's question is 

evident from the replies of the seventh juror, which prompted 

the judge to preclude the question for the remainder of the voir 

dire. In response to the question, "Regardless of whether the 

defendant has a right to testify or not, would you expect that 

an innocent defendant would testify?" the juror provided a 

series of confused answers: "I would think, but I don't -- I'd 

be open to hearing or not hearing. I don't know if that makes 

sense"; "You're asking if he is claiming he's innocent --"; and 

"If you're claiming that he is innocent and he did testify, do I 

have -- I’m sorry." When the judge told counsel to pose the

question again, he omitted the defendant's right not to testify 

altogether and simply asked, "If [the defendant] was innocent, 

would you expect that he probably would testify?" to which the 

juror's response remained unclear: "Just to defend himself and 

he would have probable cause."

Although the judge's decision to engage in an "experiment" 

may have been unconventional, her decision to revisit her prior 

ruling was not. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 22 Mass. 
23

App. Ct. 274, 277 n.5 (1986) ("even if nothing unexpected 

happens at trial, the [trial] judge is free, in the exercise of 

sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine 

ruling"). The record demonstrates that the judge was 

uncomfortable with defense counsel's question from the start, 

and precluded the question after the seventh juror's response

showed that it might cause confusion. The record does not 

support the defendant's suggestion that the judge decided to 

preclude the question because the experiment proved fruitful in 

revealing bias. On this record, we conclude that the judge did 

not abuse her discretion in declining to allow defense counsel

to continue posing this specific question, and instead choosing 

to probe potential juror bias on the question of the defendant's 

right not to testify with her own form of that question.

b. Sufficiency of the evidence. The defendant argues that 

the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of violating G. L.

c. 265, § 50 (a), the so-called "human trafficking" or "sex 

trafficking" statute. The defendant maintains that his actions 

could not constitute human trafficking because they did not 

involve force or coercion, and the victim willingly engaged in 

prostitution.

General Laws c. 265, § 50 (a), provides, in relevant part:
24

"Whoever knowingly: (i) subjects, or attempts to 

subject, or recruits, entices, harbors, transports, 

provides or obtains by any means . . . another person 

to engage in commercial sexual activity . . . or 

causes a person to engage in commercial sexual 

activity . . . shall be guilty of the crime of 

trafficking of persons for sexual servitude . . . ."

11

The statute was enacted in 2011, when the Legislature recognized

that the Commonwealth could not simply rely on Federal 

prosecutions to combat human trafficking, and needed to empower 

local authorities to assist. See State House News Service

(House Sess.), Nov. 15, 2011 (human trafficking statute was

enacted "to make sure local law enforcement can devote their 

offices and resource[s] and not wait for [F]ederal 

intervention"). See also 2011 House Doc No. 3483, Senate Floor 

Debate, Nov. 14, 2011; House Approves Bill on Human Trafficking,

Boston Globe, June 2, 2011 ("the human trafficking problem in 

Massachusetts is more likely to involve smaller bands of 

domestic groups rather than larger international slave 

trading. . . . The [F]ederal government has laws against human 

trafficking, but often lacks resources to go after smaller 

offenders. Prosecutors say the [S]tate law would make it easier 

to build cases that would fill in those enforcement gaps"). At

 

11 The human trafficking statute also applies to anyone who 

"(ii) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, 

as a result of a violation of clause (i)." G. L. c. 265, 

§ 50 (a). The jury were not instructed on this subclause, 

however, as the judge determined that it was inapplicable here.
25

that time, only three other States had not enacted some form of 

a human trafficking offense. See State House News Service

(Senate Sess.), Nov. 15, 2011; 2011 House Doc. No. 3808, Senate 

Floor Debate, Nov. 14, 2011. While the statute clearly was 

enacted to fill a "gap," the Legislature also intended to 

"change the focus of police and prosecutors from targeting 

prostitutes to going after the men who pay for sex with them and 

the pimps who profit from the transactions." See Gov. Patrick 

Signs Bill Against Human Trafficking, Associated Press, Nov. 21, 

2011. See also 2011 House Doc. No. 3808, Senate Floor Debate, 

supra; State House News Service (Senate Sess.), supra; New Law 

Aims to Shut Down Sex Trade Traffickers, Telegram & Gazette,

Nov. 22, 2011.

Consistent with such Legislative intent, in Commonwealth v. 

McGhee, 472 Mass. 405 (2015), this court rejected the limited

reading of the human trafficking statute that the defendant puts 

forth. In that case, the court observed that "the Legislature 

has determined that whether a person being trafficked for sexual 

servitude has been forced or coerced into engaging in such 

activities is immaterial for purposes of ascertaining whether a 

criminal act has been committed." Id. at 415. The defendants 

in McGhee had argued that, without an element of force or 

coercion, the statute was unconstitutionally vague because it 

could apply even to the act of "merely assisting a consenting 
26

adult prostitute." Id. at 413. The court explained that use of 

the word "knowingly" in the statutory language showed that the 

statute's "clear and deliberate focus . . . is the intent of the 

perpetrator, not the means used by the perpetrator to accomplish 

his or her intent." Id. at 415. Therefore, "'merely assisting'

an adult consenting prostitute will still constitute the crime 

of sex trafficking in those circumstances where all of the 

statutory elements have been satisfied" (emphasis in original).12 

Id. at 416.

Thus, here, the Commonwealth could meet its burden of 

proving that the defendant engaged in human trafficking by 

showing that he knowingly "subject[ed], or attempt[ed] to 

subject, or recruit[ed], entice[d], . . . transport[ed or] 

provide[d] . . . another person to engage in commercial sexual 

activity." See G. L. c. 265, § 50 (a); McGhee, 472 Mass. at 

416. Viewed in its entirety, and in the light most favorable to 

the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth's case presented sufficient 

evidence that the defendant's conduct violated the human 

trafficking statute. The jury could have found that the 

defendant "enticed" and "recruited" the victim to engage in 

 

12 The defendant argues that if the human trafficking 

statute applies to those who assist willing prostitutes, it is 

unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We have previously 

considered and rejected this argument. See Commonwealth v. 

McGhee, 472 Mass. 405, 412-420 (2015).
27

prostitution because he told her that she was beautiful and 

would make "good money" from prostitution, controlled the terms 

of her client visits, encouraged her to advertise on Backpage, 

and helped her pay for and set up the Backpage account.

The defendant contends that the statement in McGhee that 

the human trafficking statute does not require force or coercion 

was dicta, as it was undisputed that the victims in that case 

were coerced, and, in any event, according to the defendant,

McGhee was wrongly decided. He challenges the analysis in

McGhee that, by contrast to the earlier-enacted Federal statute 

prohibiting human trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 1591, the 

Massachusetts statute omits the element of force or coercion, 

which McGhee explained "reflect[s] a conscious decision by the 

Legislature to deviate from the standard embodied in the Federal 

statute" (citation omitted). McGhee, 472 Mass. at n.8. The 

defendant maintains that this omission was because, under the 

Federal statute, coercion is a "defined and narrow term of art"

that encompasses only threats of serious harm or abuse of the 

legal process. See 18 U.S.C. § 1591(e)(2). He suggests that 

the Massachusetts statute is more akin to another Federal 

statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2422, which punishes anyone who "knowingly 

persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to engage 

in prostitution," and that the omission of force or coercion 

from the language of the Massachusetts statute does not mean 
28

that the Legislature intended to dispense with the element of 

coercion altogether.

The defendant's interpretation of the statute is 

unconvincing. Not only did the Legislature choose not to 

include the term "coercion" in the Massachusetts human 

trafficking statute, it also chose to omit the term "force," a 

term that does not have a specialized meaning under the Federal 

statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 1591. This suggests that the wording 

of the statute was not merely to avoid being constrained by the 

Federal definition of "coercion." Additionally, if the primary 

concern of the Legislature were to avoid the narrow definition 

of "coercion" in the Federal statute, the Legislature could have 

enacted its own definition. It did not do so.

The defendant also posits that because the Legislature has

not repealed the statutes that criminalize deriving support from 

prostitution (G. L. c. 272, § 7) and aiding and abetting 

prostitution (G. L. c. 272, § 53, and G. L. c. 274, § 2), the 

Legislature must have intended the human trafficking statute to 

target a more traditional, narrow set of crimes involving force 

or coercion, rather than simple encouragement. The reading of 

the human trafficking statute in McGhee, however, did not make 

these other statutes superfluous. As the court explained, the 

statute criminalizing deriving support from prostitution 

"plainly states that the conduct prohibited by that statute is 
29

the sharing of proceeds earned by a known prostitute. In 

contrast, under [the human trafficking statute], an individual 

who knowingly enables or causes another person to engage in 

commercial sexual activity need not benefit, either financially 

or by receiving something of value, from such conduct." McGhee, 

472 Mass. at 416-417. Additionally, the knowledge element of 

the deriving support statute is retrospective, because the crime 

occurs when proceeds of a past act of prostitution are shared, 

while the knowledge required by the human trafficking statute is 

prospective, as it relates to an individual's "anticipated 

engagement in commercial sexual activity." Id. at 417.

Moreover, the plain and ordinary meaning of the actus reus

in the human trafficking statute does not, as the defendant 

contends, necessarily "connote[] some level of inducement, 

manipulation, or coercion." For example, the dictionary 

definition of "entice" is to "incite," "instigate," "draw on by 

arousing hope or desire," "allure," "attract," "draw into evil 

ways," "lead astray," or "tempt." Webster's Third New 

International Dictionary 757 (1993). See Commonwealth v. Samuel 

S., 476 Mass. 497, 501 (2017) (we look to dictionary definitions 

as guide to plain or ordinary meaning of term). None of these 

meanings implies force or coercion. One may entice, for 

example, simply by making an attractive offer. Similarly, to 

"recruit" means to "hire or otherwise obtain to perform 
30

services," to "secure the services of" another, to "muster," 

"raise," or "enlist." Webster's Third New International 

Dictionary 1899 (1993). Such recruitment does not require force 

or coercion.

In the same vein, nothing in the language of the human 

trafficking statute suggests that it excludes conduct aimed at 

victims who have engaged in prostitution in the past. An

individual who previously has worked as a prostitute nonetheless 

might decide to engage in a particular act of prostitution. As 

the Commonwealth points out, the reading that the defendant 

would impose would lead to an absurd result, as the statute 

would then punish only "the first person who victimizes a person 

via sexual servitude." The fact that, in this case, the victim 

had been engaged in prostitution during some unspecified period

before she met the defendant does not insulate him. Evidence 

introduced at trial showed that the victim returned to 

prostitution following the defendant's specific encouragement. 

Thus, the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction on 

the charge of human trafficking.

c. Jury instruction on human trafficking. The defendant 

contends that the judge's instruction on human trafficking was 

inadequate. On this charge, the judge instructed:

"In order to prove the defendant guilty of this 

offense, the Commonwealth must prove the following two 

elements beyond a reasonable doubt: first, that the 
31

defendant subjected or attempted to subject, or 

recruited or enticed, harbored, transported, provided 

or obtained by any means, or attempted to recruit, 

entice, harbor, transport, provide or obtain by any 

means, [the victim], or caused [the victim] to engage 

in commercial sexual activity; and second, that the 

defendant did so knowingly."

We discern no error in the judge's instruction. The 

defendant takes issue with the judge's rejection of his proposal 

to include language stating that the defendant must have

"enabled or caused" the victim's prostitution. This argument 

relies on language in McGhee intended to clarify that the human 

trafficking statute "does not prohibit all interactions or 

associations between a prostitute and family members, friends, 

or social service organizations. Rather, it forbids such 

individuals or entities from knowingly undertaking specified 

activities that will enable or cause another person to engage in 

commercial sexual activity." McGhee, 472 Mass. at 418. This 

reference to "enabling" or "causing" prostitution was a shorthand means of describing the various ways in which a person may

violate the human trafficking statute, as set forth in full in

the judge's instruction.

The defendant argues also that the judge erred in declining 

to give a proposed instruction that "[i]t is not enough to show

that [the victim] worked as a prostitute and the defendant 

helped her do so; the Commonwealth must prove that he knowingly 

did at least one of the specific things listed above to make her 
32

engage in commercial sexual activity." The proposed instruction 

is duplicative of the judge's instruction, and merely requires

the jury to consider all of the elements of the human 

trafficking statute. That the judge declined to emphasize the 

elements of the human trafficking statute in the manner that the 

defendant preferred does not constitute error. See Commonwealth

v. Kelly, 470 Mass. 682, 688 (2015) ("Trial judges have 

considerable discretion in framing jury instructions, both in 

determining the precise phraseology used and the appropriate 

degree of elaboration" [quotations and citation omitted]).

d. Impeachment evidence. The defendant argues that it was 

reversible error for the judge to bar him from using Backpage 

records to impeach the victim's testimony. Prior to trial, the 

parties had stipulated to the authenticity of a number of

Backpage records;

13 these records included four Backpage 

advertisements depicting the victim, as well as invoices 

associated with those advertisements. Four of the invoices, one 

for each of the four advertisements, were dated for periods

prior to the defendant's arrest. Twenty other invoices, 

 

13 The stipulation provided: "The parties stipulate that 

the Backpage records of [the victim] are true, authentic, and 

complete. The parties waive objections to admittance of these 

records on authenticity grounds and state that they need not be 

obtained via a trial subpoena for admission at trial. The 

parties do not waive objections to admissibility on any other 

grounds."
33

associated with one of these advertisements, were dated after 

the defendant had been arrested and was being held in pretrial 

detention.

The Commonwealth moved in limine to exclude evidence of 

Backpage invoices after the date of the defendant's arrest, 

arguing that those invoices had no bearing on the human 

trafficking charge and that evidence of any of the victim's 

subsequent sexual conduct would violate the rape shield statute.

The judge denied the Commonwealth's motion, reasoning that such

evidence would be relevant to the issue whether the victim was 

"enticed" into prostitution. The judge also ruled that defense 

counsel would be allowed to ask the victim whether she had 

reposted an advertisement on Backpage after the defendant's 

arrest.

On direct examination of the victim, the Commonwealth was 

allowed to admit the package of documents containing all of the 

Backpage advertisements and invoices, "[s]ubject to redaction." 

During cross-examination, the victim denied that she had 

reposted any advertisements on Backpage after the defendant was 

arrested. Defense counsel believed that she was perjuring 

herself and sought to impeach her denial with the Backpage 

invoices from the period after the defendant's arrest. He 

argued that the invoices showed that someone must have paid to 

have the advertisement reposted, and that the invoices had not 
34

been generated automatically, because they were dated 

sporadically and depicted an "auto repost" box which was not 

checked. He also maintained that the person who had reposted 

the advertisement likely was the victim, because the 

advertisement associated with the postarrest invoices displayed 

a telephone number that the victim had obtained only after the 

defendant had asked her to stop using Backpage, shortly before 

his arrest. Additionally, the invoices dated after the 

defendant's arrest had a different electronic mail address from

that on the invoices dated before his arrest, and the new

electronic mail address contained the victim's married name.

The judge denied defense counsel's request, noting that

counsel could not impeach the victim with someone else's 

statement, and would need to call a Backpage employee to explain 

the contents of the invoices. She commented that the Backpage 

invoices were "speculative at best" on the question whether, as 

the defendant argued, the victim had reposted the advertisement. 

The judge observed that the victim was not required to "figure 

them out herself," and noted that the defendant should have 

called a Backpage employee to explain the contents of the 

invoices in order to contradict the victim's testimony; simply 

"dangling a series of invoices in front of [the jury]" was 
35

unfair.

14 While defense counsel was permitted to ask about the 

victim's reposting of the advertisement, the judge explained, he 

would be "stuck with her answer." The judge then sua sponte 

told the parties retroactively to redact the previously admitted 

Backpage records in conformity with her ruling.

A witness generally may be impeached by contradiction with 

(1) the witness's own prior, inconsistent statement; (2) 

internal inconsistency in the witness's testimony; or (3) other 

conflicting evidence. M.S. Brodin & M. Avery, Handbook of 

Massachusetts Evidence § 6.13 (2017). See Mass. G. Evid. 

§§ 606, 613(a) (2017). Because the invoices did not constitute 

statements by the victim, they could not be treated as her prior 

 

14 The judge determined further that admission of the 

Backpage invoices from the time after the defendant's arrest 

would violate G. L. c. 233, § 21B, the rape shield statue. With 

a few exceptions, that statute generally restricts the 

admissibility of evidence of "the reputation of a victim's 

sexual conduct" and "specific instances of a victim's sexual 

conduct." We have recognized, however, that a "defendant may 

introduce evidence of the complaining witness's sexual conduct 

where that conduct is relevant to the complainant's bias or 

motive to fabricate." Commonwealth v. Harris, 443 Mass. 714, 

721 (2005). See Commonwealth v. Polk, 462 Mass. 23, 37–38 

(2012) ("where the rape shield statute is in conflict with a 

defendant's constitutional right to present evidence that might 

lead the jury to find that a Commonwealth witness is lying or 

otherwise unreliable, the statutory prohibition must give way to 

the constitutional right"). When offered for impeachment, the 

introduction of such evidence is within the discretion of the 

trial judge, bearing in mind "the important policies underlying 

the [r]ape-[s]hield statute" (citation omitted). Harris, supra. 

Given our conclusion, we do not address whether the rape shield 

law would have precluded introduction of the invoices.
36

inconsistent statements for impeachment purposes. See 

Commonwealth v. Evans, 438 Mass. 142, 157 (2002), cert. denied, 

538 U.S. 966 (2003) (memorandum could not be used to impeach 

witness with prior inconsistent statement because "the 

statement, as written, was not attributable to the [witness]

with sufficient precision to be used for the intended purpose"). 

Additionally, while the invoices could constitute independent 

contradictory evidence, a judge "has discretion to exclude 

relevant evidence on the ground that its probative value is 

outweighed by the risk of confusion or unfair prejudice." 

Commonwealth v. Rosario, 444 Mass. 550, 557 (2005). Although

the parties did stipulate to the authenticity of the records, 

the judge did not preclude their use for impeachment purposes on 

authenticity grounds. Rather, she concluded that the invoices 

would be too confusing for the jury to make sense of without the 

testimony of a Backpage employee who could explain how Backpage 

issued its invoices, and other of its record-keeping practices, 

such that the meaning of the unchecked box on the invoices, and 

whether it necessarily meant a manual intervention by the person 

who posted the advertisement, was clear.

The defendant points out, accurately, that a witness who 

perjures himself or herself opens the door to rebuttal of the 

false statements. See Commonwealth v. Roderick, 429 Mass. 271, 

275 (1999). Nevertheless, impeachment is not a "blank check,"
37

and is limited by other rules of evidence. See Commonwealth v. 

Durand, 475 Mass. 657, 662, (2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 259 

(2017) ("trial judges retain wide latitude to impose reasonable 

limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among 

other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues or 

interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant" 

[citation and alterations omitted]). The trial judge was best

situated to assess the extent to which the invoices might have 

been confusing to the jury. See L.L., 470 Mass. at 185 n.27. 

We conclude that her ruling was not an abuse of discretion.

Judgments affirmed.