Court Opinion

ID: 9724165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:47:30.470722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:56.990516
License: Public Domain

Brown, J.
(concurring). The majority concedes that this was not a well-tried case. I agree, albeit reluctantly, that any error here was, in all the circumstances, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
I often have counseled that the judge and the prosecutor, as well as the defense counsel, are equally responsible for ensuring that defendants receive a fair trial. Of course, “a judge is not bound to ask questions of prospective jurors beyond those required by G. L. c. 234, § 28,” ante at 677, but certain questions cry out for inclusion within the remaining broad range of discretion, when, as here, the charge is child sexual abuse, and the question requested during empanelment is whether any member has been the victim of child abuse when he or she was a child.
*682Likewise, all participants should be aware of the great potential danger inherent in use of fresh complaint testimony, particularly when the victims are young children. As already mentioned by the majority, defense counsel filed no pretrial motion in limine, even though “[tjhere was forewarning” that three witnesses might describe acts beyond those testified to by the victim. Neither the judge nor the prosecutor reacted in a manner which would have blunted what the majority called a “telegraphed” punch.