Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/76/76massappct241.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:56:14+00:00

Document:
Present: CYPHER, DREBEN, & MEADE, JJ.
Evidence, Prior misconduct, Relevancy and materiality, Motive. Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury.
COMPLAINT received and sworn to in the West Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on September 13, 2007.
The case was tried before Kathleen E. Coffey, J.
Michael A. Waryasz for the defendant.
Nicholas Kaiser (Teresa K. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth.
DREBEN, J. This case raises the issue whether evidence of a prior charged assault by means of a dangerous weapon by the defendant, introduced to show the defendant's hostility or motive in the present case, should have been excluded because the defendant was acquitted of the prior charge. We hold there was no error in the admission of the evidence.
with four new offenses: malicious destruction of property over $250, threat to commit a crime, intimidation of a witness, and violation of an abuse prevention order that Theodore obtained against the defendant after the August 23 incident. [Note 1] He was convicted of violating the abuse prevention order and acquitted of the other three offenses.
Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude testimony surrounding the August incident. At trial, he objected to evidence from Theodore who testified that on August 23, 2007, the defendant had broken Theodore's arm with a baseball bat. Theodore was hospitalized and after leaving the hospital filed a criminal complaint as well as obtaining the abuse prevention order. After his arraignment, but prior to the present trial, the defendant was acquitted of the charge of assault by means of a dangerous weapon, which had been initiated by Theodore arising from the August 23, 2007 incident. The defendant elicited the fact of acquittal on cross-examination of Theodore at trial.
between the brothers. It supported the prosecution's theory that the defendant was motivated to commit the September crimes by anger at his brother for instigating the charges relating to the baseball bat incident on which the defendant had just been arraigned. [Note 3] The general rule is that such evidence is admissible to show hostility and motive, see Mass. G. Evid. § 404(b) (2008-2009), and the admission of such evidence will be upheld absent clear error. Commonwealth v. Stewart, 450 Mass. 25 , 36-37 (2007), and cases cited.
We consider the Dowling decision persuasive and it accords with our general rule that where, in the judge's discretion, the probative value of relevant evidence outweighs its prejudice, it is admissible. The prejudicial impact of such evidence is minimized by informing the jury that the defendant was found not guilty of the charge. See Commonwealth v. Francis, 432 Mass. at 359.
The defendant also complains that the judge gave no limiting instruction. "Contrary to the defendant's claim advanced here for the first time, the law does not require a judge to give limiting jury instructions regarding the purpose for which evidence is offered unless so requested by the defendant." Commonwealth v. Leonardi, 413 Mass. at 764.
[Note 1] The order required the defendant to stay 100 yards away from Theodore and to have no contact with him.
The defendant on an unspecified date also obtained an abuse prevention order against Theodore.
[Note 2] The events occurred on the street where the defendant lived. Theodore testified that he was on that street because he was avoiding traffic on the usual route to his own house.
[Note 3] The fact that Theodore brought charges against the defendant would, in any event, be admissible to show the defendant's anger and motive.
[Note 4] In Dowling v. United States, supra, the Supreme Court held that because of the different standard of proof, the introduction of such evidence did not violate the collateral estoppel component of the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution. The Court also held that it did not violate the Federal Constitution's due process clause. Id. at 352-354. See Commonwealth v. Woods, 414 Mass. 343 , 346-351, 353-354, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 815 (1993), for a discussion of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel.
[Note 5] In Commonwealth v. Francis, supra, unlike the present case, the evidence was conceded to be inadmissible by the Commonwealth apparently because "its relevance to the charges against the defendant was tenuous and was substantially outweighed by its potential to suggest the defendant's criminal propensity." Id. at 359.
[Note 6] Relevant evidence of prior charged acts of a defendant has been held admissible even when the defendant has been acquitted of the acts: Ladd v. State, 568 P.2d 960, 968 (Alaska 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 928 (1978); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal. 2d 459, 464 (1967); Kinney v. People, 187 P.3d 548, 554 (Colo. 2008); State v. Paradis, 106 Idaho 117, 122, 123-124 (1983), cert. denied, 468 U.S. 1220 (1984); State v. Darling, 197 Kan. 471, 481 (1966); State v. Searles, 246 Kan. 567, 579, 582 (1990); Hampton v. Commonwealth, 133 S.W.3d 438, 442 (Ky. 2004); State v. Cotton, 778 So. 2d 569 (La. 2001); State v. Dean, 589 A.2d 929, 932-933 (Me. 1991); Womble v. State, 8 Md. App. 119, 124 (1969); People v. Bolden, 98 Mich. App. 452, 459 (1980); State v. Millard, 242 S.W. 923, 926 (Mo. 1922); State v. Yormark, 117 N.J. Super. 315, 337 (1971); State v. Schlue, 129 N.J. Super. 351, 354, 356 (1974); State v. Smith, 271 Or. 294, 296 (1975); State v. Bernier, 491 A.2d 1000, 1005 (R.I. 1985); State v. Russell, 62 Wash. 2d 635, 637 (1963); State v. Mongold, 220 W.Va. 259, 265-266, 269-270 (2007). See Ex Parte Bayne, 375 So. 2d 1239, 1243 (Ala. 1979); Commonwealth v. McCall, 567 Pa. 165, 172-173 (2001).
McCormick views such evidence to be admissible. 1 McCormick, Evidence § 190, at 765, 765-766 n.66 (6th ed. 2006).
In contrast, the following State court decisions exclude evidence of prior charged acts where the defendant has been acquitted of the act: State v. Little, 87 Ariz. 295, 307 (1960); State v. Perkins, 349 So. 2d 161, 163-164 (Fla. 1977); State v. Burton, 281 N.W.2d 195, 197 (Minn. 1979); McMichael v. State, 98 Nev. 1, 4 (1982); State v. Scott, 331 N.C. 39, 40, 42 (1992); State v. Holman, 611 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Tenn. 1981); Kerbyson v. Texas, 711 S.W.2d 289, 290 (Tex. Ct. App. 1986); State v. Kerwin, 133 Vt. 391, 395 (1975). See Moore v. State, 254 Ga. 674, 676, 677 (1985).

References: § 404
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 190
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.