Title: Commonwealth v. Quinn
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-11554
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: September 11, 2014

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11554 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs. KEVIN QUINN. 
 
 
 
Essex.     May 6, 2014. - September 11, 2014. 
 
Present:  Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. 
 
 
Rape.  Practice, Criminal, Cross-examination by prosecutor.  
Evidence, Cross-examination, Expert opinion, Communication 
with social worker, Relevancy and materiality.  Rape-Shield 
Statute.  Witness, Expert. 
 
 
 
 
Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court 
Department on August 29, 2007. 
 
 
The cases were tried before Leila R. Kern, J. 
 
 
After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial 
Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. 
 
 
 
Eric S. Brandt, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for 
the defendant. 
 
Catherine Langevin Semel, Assistant District Attorney, for 
the Commonwealth. 
 
 
GANTS, J.  This case requires us to examine the line that 
separates permissible expert testimony regarding the behavioral 
characteristics of sexually abused children from impermissible 
2 
expert testimony that implicitly vouches for the credibility of 
the victim witness.  Because we conclude that the prosecutor in 
this case, over objection, elicited expert testimony during 
cross-examination of the victim's therapist that crossed that 
line, and because we conclude that the error was prejudicial, we 
vacate the defendant's convictions and remand for a new trial. 
Background.  A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant 
on one indictment alleging forcible rape of a child under 
sixteen years of age and two indictments alleging indecent 
assault and battery of a child under the age of fourteen.1,2  The 
Appeals Court affirmed the convictions.  Commonwealth v. Quinn, 
83 Mass. App. Ct. 759 (2013).  We granted the defendant's 
application for further appellate review. 
We summarize the evidence presented at trial.  The 
defendant, the boy friend of the victim's mother, lived with the 
victim and her mother for approximately ten years from July, 
                                                          
 
1 This was the second trial of the defendant on these 
indictments.  The defendant's first trial ended in a mistrial 
when the jury remained deadlocked after three days of 
deliberations. 
 
2 The defendant was sentenced to from fifteen years to 
fifteen years and one day for the forcible rape conviction.  He 
was sentenced on one indecent assault and battery conviction to 
from eight years to eight years and one day, to commence on and 
after the completion of the rape sentence.  This sentence was 
reduced by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court to a 
consecutive term of from three years to five years.  The 
defendant was sentenced to a five-year term of probation on the 
other indecent assault and battery conviction. 
3 
1997, to June, 2006.  The victim testified that, in a short 
period of time after her seventh birthday in September, 1997, 
the defendant sexually abused her on three occasions.  The 
incidents occurred in largely the same way:  when her mother was 
not home in the evening, the defendant entered the victim's 
playroom, grabbed her and reached under her nightgown and 
underwear, touched her chest, put his hands "all over [her] 
body," and inserted his finger into her vagina.  In the last of 
these incidents, the defendant forced her hand onto his penis 
and moved it up and down.  She told the defendant that she was 
"going to tell [her] mom," and the defendant told her that, if 
she did, he would kill her and her mother.  The defendant did 
not attempt to sexually abuse her again. 
On July 22, 2004, the victim's mother saw that the victim, 
who was thirteen at the time, had been cutting her wrists.3  The 
victim's pediatrician advised the victim's mother to take her to 
the hospital, and, on their way there, the victim and her mother 
stopped at the defendant's workplace at his request.  The 
defendant came out to the automobile and began yelling at the 
victim.  According to the victim's testimony, the defendant told 
her she was "stupid for doing what [she] was doing" and that if 
she "really wanted to die [she] could do it right" and "cut the 
                                                          
 
3 The victim testified that she engaged in "cutting" because 
she "hated [herself] . . .  because of everything that went on 
with [the defendant]." 
4 
other way."  The defendant also warned the victim not "to tell 
anybody anything bad" at the hospital and that, if she did, she 
would be "taken away from [her] mom."4 
The victim did well in school through eighth grade; she 
received good grades, participated in school activities, and 
played the flute and guitar.  In the middle of ninth grade, 
however, she "had problems with other students," especially one 
girl who threatened her with violence, and she did not like 
going to school.  The problems grew worse when she began tenth 
grade in September, 2006, with more classmates threatening and 
bullying her.  She was anxious, depressed, and overwhelmed by 
her problems at school, and on October 30, on the referral of 
her guidance counsellor, she began seeing Grace Ireland, a 
licensed clinical social worker, approximately once each week.  
Ireland testified that the victim was grieving the death of a 
friend, suffered from agoraphobia, and was afraid to go to 
school and walk in the hallways. 
The victim was absent from school for fifty days in her 
tenth-grade school year; when she was at school, she received 
assignments from her teachers and a lesson plan, but spent her 
time shuttling between the principal's office and two guidance 
counsellors' offices rather than attending classes.  The victim 
                                                          
 
4 The prosecutor said she was first informed by the victim's 
mother of this threat on January 25, 2010, the day after the 
defendant's first trial ended in a mistrial. 
5 
agreed to the characterization that she was "pretty much self-
taught." 
The victim did not disclose the defendant's sexual abuse to 
anyone until June 21, 2007, when she was the age of sixteen and 
had just completed her tenth-grade school year.  Her disclosure 
occurred when she was at the beach with her boy friend.  
According to the boy friend's first complaint testimony, he 
revealed to her that he had been physically abused by his 
father.  When he noticed that she looked upset, he asked her if 
"anything happened in her life."  She said "no" but continued to 
look upset, so he "asked her a few more times."  Eventually she 
confided to him that she had been raped as a child by the 
defendant.  She began to cry so "hysterical[ly]" that an elderly 
couple sitting nearby asked if she had been kidnapped.  When he 
asked her what had happened, she explained that the defendant 
used to pick her up from school and bring her home because her 
mother was working, and he would rape her then.  The victim told 
him not to tell anybody, but he told her mother of the reported 
abuse.  The mother promptly informed Ireland of the abuse, and 
made an appointment for the victim to see her the following day.  
During that session, the victim told Ireland of the abuse for 
the first time; the victim had specifically denied that she had 
been sexually or physically abused when asked by Ireland at the 
6 
initial intake session on October 30, 2006, and had not spoken 
of sexual or physical abuse in any subsequent therapy session. 
Discussion.  The defendant presents two claims of error on 
appeal.  First, he argues that the judge erred in allowing the 
prosecutor on cross-examination to elicit expert testimony from 
Ireland that both explicitly and implicitly vouched for the 
victim's credibility regarding her allegations of sexual abuse.  
Second, he contends that the judge erred in barring him from 
offering evidence that the victim was pregnant at the time she 
made her first complaint. 
1.  Expert testimony.  Ireland's direct examination was 
limited to her treatment of the victim:  the nature of the 
problems she was addressing with the victim in therapy, what the 
victim said to her during therapy, and what the victim did not 
speak of until June 22, 2007, that is, sexual abuse.  She did 
not offer any testimony regarding the behavioral characteristics 
of child sexual abuse victims.  On cross-examination, the 
prosecutor transformed her into an expert witness after 
eliciting evidence that she had seventeen years of experience as 
a licensed clinical social worker treating patients who were 
traumatized by physical and sexual abuse, and who struggled with 
anxiety and depression.  The prosecutor also elicited from her 
that, as part of her training, she learned to recognize 
"malingering," which she characterized as feigning "some kind of 
7 
illness," whether physical or mental, to obtain some benefit, 
such as a day off from work where one calls in sick.  The 
prosecutor then asked Ireland whether she found that the victim 
was "faking it or malingering any of her symptoms," and Ireland 
answered, "No."5  Defense counsel did not object to this line of 
questioning. 
The prosecutor next asked Ireland to describe the victim's 
"demeanor" when Ireland began treating her.  Ireland stated 
"[The victim] was very shut down . . . [and] very quiet. . . .  
It was very hard to get her to say more than yes or no.  She was 
very upset.  She cried frequently. . . .  She had difficulty 
eating. . . .  She was afraid to be anywhere.  She's very, very 
depressed.  She couldn't sleep." 
                                                          
 
5 The exchange between Grace Ireland and the prosecutor on 
the subject of malingering was as follows: 
 
The prosecutor:  "When you had an opportunity to meet with 
[the victim] on October 30, 2006, part of what you would 
do, based on the fact that she had missed a week of school 
and you were going to write a note, is you'd make an 
evaluation of whether or not she was faking; is that 
right?" 
 
The witness:  "Yes." 
 
The prosecutor:  "And did you at any point find that she 
was faking it or malingering any of her symptoms?" 
 
The witness:  "No." 
8 
The prosecutor later asked Ireland to "describe generally 
some of the symptoms that [she had seen] in . . . teenagers who 
have been sexually abused as children."  Ireland testified: 
"[T]his applies to adults and to teenagers. . . .  [T]here 
are people [who] are very, very anxious.  They have a lot 
of . . . significant anxieties, significant depression, 
sleep impairment.  A lot of times they're very shut down.  
Most of the time they're very shut down.  Anxiety is so 
significant that it impairs their ability to function at 
school or other places.  And sometimes they will actually 
disassociate . . . .  That would be the worst continuum." 
 
She added that, if a person who is sexually abused as a child 
does not receive treatment, the person's symptoms "would 
probably exacerbate over time" and would start to get worse when 
the person reached puberty. Where depression arises from 
childhood sexual abuse, "[t]here's usually a report that people 
will tell you that they can't sleep, that they can't eat, that 
they can't function, that they . . . feel terrible all the 
time."  When the prosecutor asked whether she had experience 
with "sexually abused teenagers" who have physically harmed 
themselves, Ireland said that teenagers will sometimes "cut," 
engage in "risky behaviors," and "abuse substances."  This line 
of questioning occurred over defense counsel's repeated 
objections. 
a.  Explicit vouching.  The defendant contends that Ireland 
explicitly vouched for the victim's credibility when she 
testified that the victim was not malingering, and that such 
9 
testimony should have been excluded.  Because the defense did 
not object to this testimony at trial, our review is limited to 
whether its admission in evidence created a substantial risk of 
a miscarriage of justice.  Commonwealth v. Shea, 467 Mass. 788, 
790-791 (2014). 
No witness, neither a lay witness nor an expert, may offer 
an opinion regarding the credibility of another witness.  See 
Commonwealth v. Montanino, 409 Mass. 500, 504 (1991), citing 
Commonwealth v. Ianello, 401 Mass. 197, 202 (1987).  "Such 
testimony impermissibly intrudes on the jury's province to 
assess the credibility of the witness."  Commonwealth v. 
Richardson, 423 Mass. 180, 186 (1996), quoting Commonwealth v. 
Trowbridge, 419 Mass. 750, 759 (1995).  The defendant contends 
that, by eliciting Ireland's finding that the victim was neither 
malingering nor faking, the prosecutor essentially had elicited 
Ireland's opinion that the victim was telling the truth 
regarding the sexual abuse allegations. 
Even if we were to assume that Ireland's opinion was 
improper, its admission did not create a substantial risk of a 
miscarriage of justice.  Although the prosecutor asked whether 
Ireland found the victim to be malingering "at any point," a 
reasonable jury would have understood from the preceding 
question that the prosecutor meant to ask whether Ireland 
believed "at any point" during the intake interview that the 
10 
victim had faked her symptoms of anxiety and depression in order 
to avoid going to school during the preceding week.  Where the 
victim had denied in her initial intake interview with Ireland 
on October 30, 2006, that she had been sexually abused, we doubt 
that a reasonable jury would have understood Ireland's opinion 
regarding malingering to mean that Ireland believed the victim 
was telling the truth regarding the sexual abuse she reported 
eight months later. 
b.  Implicit vouching.  The defendant next contends that 
the judge erred by admitting in evidence, over defense counsel's 
objection, Ireland's testimony regarding the behavioral 
characteristics of sexual abuse victims because it implicitly 
vouched for the victim's credibility regarding her sexual abuse 
allegations. 
"[T]estimony on the general behavioral characteristics of 
sexually abused children may properly be the subject of expert 
testimony because behavioral and emotional characteristics 
common to these victims are 'beyond the jury's common knowledge 
and may aid them in reaching a decision.'"  Commonwealth v. 
Federico, 425 Mass. 844, 847-848 (1997), quoting Commonwealth v. 
Colin C., 419 Mass. 54, 60 (1994).  An expert witness on 
sexually abused children, however, may not "directly opine on 
whether the victim was in fact subject to sexual abuse," or 
directly refer or compare the behavior of the complainant to 
11 
general behavioral characteristics of sexually abused children.  
Federico, supra at 849.  See Trowbridge, 419 Mass. at 759.  
Consequently, an expert may not opine that the child's behavior 
or experience is consistent with the typical behavior or 
experience of sexually abused children.  Richardson, 423 Mass. 
at 186.  See Trowbridge, supra; Commonwealth v. Brouillard, 40 
Mass. App. Ct. 448, 451 (1996). 
Even where an expert does not directly compare the behavior 
of the complainant to that typical of sexually abused children, 
the expert's testimony may be inadmissible where a reasonable 
jury would think the expert was implicitly vouching for the 
credibility of the complainant.  See Montanino, 409 Mass. at 504 
("little doubt" that expert's comments regarding credibility of 
"most" sexual assault victims would be taken by jury as expert's 
endorsement of complainant's credibility); Ianello, 401 Mass. at 
202 ("While the proposed testimony fell short of rendering an 
opinion on the credibility of the specific child before the 
court, we see little difference in the final result"; expert's 
opinion "ultimately would have been applied [by the jury] to the 
child alleging sexual abuse").  See also Commonwealth v. 
Perkins, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 577, 583-584 (1995) (expert's 
testimony based on hypothetical questions that mirrored 
underlying facts of case was "tantamount to an endorsement of 
the credibility of the complaining child witness"). 
12 
"The risk of improper comparisons between any general 
behavioral characteristics of sexually abused children and a 
particular complaining child witness is most acute when the 
expert witness has examined or treated the child."  Federico, 
425 Mass. at 849.  See Commonwealth v. Quincy Q., 434 Mass. 859, 
872 (2001), quoting Richardson, 423 Mass. at 186 ("danger of 
vouching 'is greater where the witness is testifying as both a 
direct witness and an expert, particularly where the witness 
offers fresh complaint testimony'").  The risk of implicit 
vouching, therefore, was especially acute here, where Ireland 
had been the victim's therapist for nearly eight months and had 
seen her in therapy between twenty and twenty-five times.  See 
Commonwealth v. Rather, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 140, 148 n.4 (1994) 
("where the expert has seen the victim[], refers to [her], and 
also gives an opinion, the jury may believe that the witness is 
commenting on the credibility of a particular complainant that 
he or she has examined"); Commonwealth v. McCaffrey, 36 Mass. 
App. Ct. 583, 593-594 (1994) (recommending that sexual abuse 
experts "have no connection with and make no references to the 
child victim or her family"). 
"The line between permissible and impermissible opinion 
testimony in child sexual abuse cases is not easily drawn."  
Richardson, 423 Mass. at 186.  But we conclude that the 
testimony elicited on cross-examination from Ireland fell well 
13 
over the impermissible line, and that it was an abuse of 
discretion to allow this testimony in evidence.  It would 
plainly have crossed the line for Ireland to have offered an 
opinion that the victim's behavior was consistent with that of a 
teenager who had been sexually abused as a child because, as is 
common with child sexual abuse victims, she was "very shut 
down," suffered from significant anxieties and depression, had 
difficulty eating, sleeping, and functioning at school, and cut 
herself, and her symptoms grew worse when she reached puberty.  
But that is precisely what a reasonable jury would have taken 
Ireland's testimony to mean.  See Brouillard, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 
at 451 (implicit vouching where testimony "juxtaposed discussion 
of general syndromes with specific descriptions of and opinions 
about the complainants"); Rather, 37 Mass. App. Ct. at 148 n.4. 
The Commonwealth contends that the cross-examination was 
permissible because the defense attorney in her direct 
examination of Ireland elicited evidence that the victim was a 
troubled girl with emotional problems arising from her peer 
relationships and her experience in high school, and that it was 
appropriate to establish "that many of those symptoms that the 
defense attributed to peer issues were also observed in persons 
who had been sexually abused."  We recognize that evidence that 
otherwise may be inadmissible may become admissible where the 
defendant opens the door to its admission.  See, e.g., 
14 
Commonwealth v. Magraw, 426 Mass. 589, 594 (1998) (murder 
victim's mental state may become "material issue if the 
defendant opens the door by claiming," for example, "that the 
death was a suicide or a result of self-defense").  But a 
defendant does not open the door so wide as to permit a treating 
therapist to implicitly vouch for the credibility of a victim's 
claim of sexual abuse simply by calling that therapist to 
testify about the victim's symptoms and the victim's description 
of her problems.6  The gist of the evidence elicited here by 
defense counsel was twofold:  first, the victim was a troubled 
girl whose testimony may not be reliable, and, second, the 
sexual abuse allegations were not credible where she did not 
mention them to her therapist for nearly eight months.  Defense 
counsel did not elicit evidence from Ireland that the victim's 
behavior was inconsistent with that of a childhood sexual abuse 
victim or that implicitly vouched for the victim's lack of 
credibility regarding her allegations of child sexual abuse. 
In Richardson, 423 Mass. at 183, 186, a police officer with 
extensive experience investigating allegations of sexual abuse 
was called by the defendant to testify to show that the sequence 
                                                          
 
6 The prosecutor could have elicited testimony from Ireland 
on cross-examination that the victim's anxiety and depression 
were not solely caused by her problems at school.  The 
prosecutor also could have called an expert who had not treated 
the victim to testify regarding the general behavioral 
characteristics of teenagers who were victims of sexual abuse as 
children. 
15 
of incidents of sexual abuse described by the victim in speaking 
with the officer contradicted the victim's earlier testimony.  
On cross-examination, the prosecutor qualified the officer as an 
expert and elicited the officer's testimony that "it's highly 
unusual that [child victims] remember dates and times and 
sequences."  Id. at 182.  Although we held that "any error was 
not prejudicial," we noted that the testimony was "very close to 
the line of admissibility."  Id. at 186.  In Rather, 37 Mass. 
App. Ct. at 143, where the defendant was charged with child 
sexual abuse, defense counsel called one of the victim's 
therapists to elicit testimony that the victim had denied being 
anally assaulted and had not reported being burned by the 
defendant.  On cross-examination, the prosecutor qualified the 
therapist as an expert and elicited opinion testimony that 
victims of sexual abuse who are under the age of ten and who 
have been threatened generally do not disclose their sexual 
abuse and, when they do, they disclose it in stages over a long 
period of time.  Id. at 144.  The Appeals Court concluded that 
"the jury could reasonably have concluded that the witness had 
implicitly rendered an opinion as to the general truthfulness of 
the victims," and that the cross-examination therefore crossed 
the line into improper testimony.  Id. at 148-149.  If the 
cross-examination in Richardson came "very close to the line of 
admissibility," Richardson, supra at 186, and if the cross-
16 
examination in Rather crossed it, the cross-examination here was 
certainly impermissible where it suggested that the behavioral 
characteristics of the victim were consistent with those of 
sexual abuse victims. 
Having concluded that the improper admission of the 
expert's implicit vouching for the credibility of the victim was 
error, we now consider whether the error was prejudicial.  An 
error is not prejudicial where it "did not influence the jury, 
or had but very slight effect."  Commonwealth v. Christian, 430 
Mass. 552, 563 (2000), quoting Commonwealth v. Flebotte, 417 
Mass. 348, 353 (1994).  We cannot be confident in this case that 
Ireland's implicit vouching did not influence the jury.  The 
Commonwealth's case rested almost entirely on the credibility of 
the emotionally troubled victim; apart from the boy friend's 
first complaint testimony, there was no corroboration of her 
allegations of sexual abuse.  Where a reasonable jury would have 
understood the victim's therapist, who had seen the victim 
regularly for nearly eight months and who had treated many child 
sexual abuse victims, to have suggested that the victim's 
behavioral characteristics were consistent with that of a child 
sexual abuse victim, we cannot say this expert testimony did not 
influence the jury's evaluation of the victim's credibility.  We 
therefore vacate the defendant's convictions and remand for a 
new trial. 
17 
2.  Exclusion of evidence of pregnancy.  Because we are 
vacating the defendant's convictions, we need not dwell on the 
defendant's second claim of error but address it only because it 
may arise again on retrial.  After obtaining a medical record 
that showed that the victim was pregnant in July, 2007, the 
defendant sought the judge's permission to ask the victim if she 
was pregnant when she disclosed her sexual abuse on June 21, 
2007.  The judge denied the motion, concluding that the risk of 
unfair prejudice outweighed its probative value, especially in 
view of the legislative policy reflected in the rape shield 
statute, G. L. c. 233, § 21B, that declares inadmissible, except 
under certain circumstances not present here, "[e]vidence of 
specific instances of a victim's sexual conduct."  See, e.g., 
Commonwealth v. Herrick, 39 Mass. App. Ct. 291, 295 (1995) 
(evidence victim became pregnant six months after alleged 
incident properly excluded as irrelevant where defendant sought 
to argue victim invented rape allegations to hide fact she was 
sexually active from mother); Commonwealth v. Cross, 33 Mass. 
App. Ct. 761, 764 (1992) (evidence that male complainant in 
statutory rape case had thought his girl friend was pregnant 
properly excluded under rape shield statute). 
"We have recognized . . . that 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 
18 
Commonwealth witness is lying or otherwise unreliable, the 
statutory prohibition must give way to the constitutional 
right."  Commonwealth v. Polk, 462 Mass. 23, 37-38 (2012).  The 
defendant contends that, if the victim were pregnant at the time 
of her disclosure, she had an additional motive to lie about the 
defendant's sexual abuse in order to prevent the defendant from 
returning to her home.7  Where there was already abundant 
evidence that the victim did not want the defendant to return 
home,8 the judge did not abuse her discretion in barring evidence 
of the victim's pregnancy. 
Conclusion.  The defendant's convictions are vacated, the 
verdicts are set aside, and the case is remanded to the Superior 
Court for a new trial. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
                                                          
 
7 In the days leading up to June 21, 2007, when the victim 
first disclosed the abuse to her boy friend, the defendant had 
spent an increasing amount of time with the victim's family, and 
had spent the night at the house once during the week of June 
10, and again on June 17. 
 
8 The victim acknowledged she was "relieved" when the 
defendant and her mother broke up, and "fearful" that they would 
get back together.  The defendant had not wanted the victim to 
date when he lived with her.  In June, 2007, the victim's boy 
friend was living with her family while his father was serving 
in the military, but the victim's boy friend testified that he 
did not believe the defendant had stayed overnight at the 
victim's house during that time period.