Court Opinion

ID: 9742277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:10:00.65167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:30.562976
License: Public Domain

Brown, J.
(concurring). I find most objectionable the manner in which the prosecutor framed his questions in an effort to bring out the reasons why the victim did not seek assistance when in her perilous situation. The prosecutor prompted the witnesses by subtly injecting the racial character of the neighborhood and the persons. I would be much more comfortable if the prosecutor had not initially asked *276the victim and the other witness such questions as “what type [sz'c] of person” and “what kind [sz'c] of neighborhood” were involved in this matter. It cannot be said too often that care must be taken not to exploit, even inferentially, latent racial paranoia. I again harken back to the advice (constantly repeated) of our Supreme Judicial Court: There is no substitute for advance preparation. Cf. Commonwealth v. Haas, 373 Mass. 545, 557 & n.11 (1977).
I reluctantly concur, however, because of (1) the paucity of the objections to the inappropriately phrased questions and (2) the lack of objections to the closing argument and the judge’s instructions and because, in light of the sensitive and careful “individual voir dire [of] each potential juror on the subject of racial bias,” it is difficult to conclude that there was a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.