Court Opinion

ID: 9405031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 14:06:07.560901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:18.765292
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  22-P-127

                                  COMMONWEALTH

                                       vs.

                                 FRANCIS WATT.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       On November 14, 2013, a jury convicted the defendant of

 aggravated rape of a child and other charges, arising out of his

 rape and assault of his autistic and mute twelve year old

 granddaughter.      The defendant appealed, challenging the

 sufficiency of the evidence, and a panel of this court affirmed

 the convictions in an unpublished decision.            See Commonwealth v.

 Watt, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 1122 (2015).

       The defendant filed a motion for new trial in 2016, which

 was denied without prejudice.         He filed a second motion for new

 trial in 2019 (second motion), arguing that he received

 ineffective assistance of counsel and that the prosecution

 failed to investigate potentially exculpatory evidence, which

 was denied on July 3, 2020.         He appealed from the order denying

 his second motion; that appeal was stayed to permit him to file
a third motion for new trial (third motion).       On May 17, 2021,

the defendant filed his third motion, in which he focused on

alleged shortcomings in the chain of custody of a video (with

audio) made by his twenty-seven year old granddaughter (the

victim's half-sister, Carrie1) that captured the misconduct

giving rise to his convictions.2       On September 13, 2021, the

third motion was denied, and on October 21, 2021, the

defendant's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied.

On November 24, 2021, the defendant filed a status report, which

was treated as a notice of appeal from the orders denying his

third motion and his motion for reconsideration.       This court

thereafter consolidated that appeal with the defendant's earlier

appeal from the order denying his second motion.

     On appeal, the defendant argues that his trial counsel was

ineffective, that Carrie was acting as a government agent when

she recorded the video, and that there was insufficient evidence

to sustain the convictions.   We affirm.

1 A pseudonym.
2 Prior to trial, the defendant's motion to suppress the video
made by Carrie was denied. The defendant's interlocutory appeal
was allowed, and on April 24, 2013, the Supreme Judicial Court
affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, rejecting the
defendant's arguments that the video violated Title III of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2511(2)(d) (2006) (Federal wiretap statute). Commonwealth v.
F.W., 465 Mass. 1, 2 (2013).

                                   2
    Discussion.    1.    Ineffective assistance of counsel.   We

review the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim

to determine whether "(1) the 'behavior of counsel [fell]

measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary

fallible lawyer' and (2) such failing 'likely deprived the

defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of

defence.'"    Commonwealth v. Tavares, 491 Mass. 362, 365 (2023),

quoting Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974).

"Where a new trial is sought based on a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel, the burden of proving ineffectiveness

rests with the defendant."    Commonwealth v. Kolenovic, 471 Mass.

664, 673 (2015), quoting Commonwealth v. Montez, 450 Mass. 736,

755 (2008).   "If a defendant challenges the 'tactical or

strategic decisions[]' of trial counsel, he must establish them

as 'manifestly unreasonable.'"    Commonwealth v. Shanley, 455

Mass. 752, 768 (2010), quoting Commonwealth v. Montanez, 410

Mass. 290, 295 (1991).    We discern no "significant error of law

or other abuse of discretion" in the judge's rejection of these

claims.   Commonwealth v. Forte, 469 Mass. 469, 488 (2014),

quoting Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303, 307 (1986).

                                  3
     First, based on a short answer to a question during an

evidentiary hearing,3 the defendant argues that counsel was

ineffective for failing to argue that Carrie was a government

agent when she set up the hidden camera.    Because the defendant

raised this claim for the first time in his third motion, it is

waived.     See Commonwealth v. Pisa, 384 Mass. 362, 366 (1981)

("Issues not raised at trial or pursued in available appellate

proceedings are waived"); Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (c) (2), as

appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001).   Even if the issue were not

waived, the defendant has failed to show either that counsel's

performance fell below that of an ordinary fallible lawyer or

that it deprived the defendant of a substantial ground of

defense.    The defendant has produced no evidence that Carrie was

prompted by the police to set up the video, or that there was

any reason for trial counsel to suspect that such prompting had

occurred.    See Commonwealth v. Brzezinski, 405 Mass. 401, 404-

405 (1989) (fact that person speaks with police before taking

action adverse to defendant does not create agency

relationship); Commonwealth v. Rancourt, 399 Mass. 269, 274

(1987) ("An individual's actions will not be attributed to the

State if no promises are made for that individual's help and if

3 Defense counsel asked Carrie, "[D]id you ever speak to the
police about your concerns prior to making the video and audio
tape?" She responded, "Yes, I did."

                                  4
nothing was offered to or asked of that individual").4      Moreover,

testimony from both Carrie and the detective who met with her

established that there was no contact between Carrie and the

police when she recorded the defendant.

     Second, the defendant argues that his counsel's failure to

retain an expert for trial to explain to the jury certain

behaviors of autistic children deprived him of effective

assistance of counsel.   Here, the defendant has offered no

affidavit from any expert setting forth the testimony or

theories on cross-examination that would have been pursued had

such an expert been retained.     See Commonwealth v. Alicea, 464

Mass. 837, 850-851 (2013) ("claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel for failure to call an expert witness is generally

doomed where '[t]he defendant's claim is not supported by any

affidavits' to disclose the content of the omitted expert

testimony" [citation omitted]).       In addition, trial counsel's

affidavit made clear that he made a valid tactical decision not

to pursue the testimony, which was not "manifestly unreasonable"

(citation omitted).   Commonwealth v. Roberts, 423 Mass. 17, 20

(1996).5   As trial counsel explained, he could and did elicit

4 The defendant also substantively raises the claim that Carrie
was acting as a government agent, which fails for similar
reasons.
5 For the same reasons, the trial attorney's failure to seek to

obtain funds to obtain an expert witness did not amount to an
ineffective assistance of counsel. Further, as the motion judge

                                  5
such testimony on cross-examination of other witnesses, a

strategy that avoided the risks that an expert witness could

have highlighted for the jury the victim's autism and that the

Commonwealth could have obtained favorable testimony on cross-

examination.

    Third, the defendant claims that there were defects in the

chain of custody of the video and his trial counsel was

ineffective for not challenging its authenticity.     "Alleged

defects in the chain of custody usually go to the weight of the

evidence and not its admissibility."   Commonwealth v.

Viriyahiranpaiboon, 412 Mass. 224, 230 (1992).     Further,

authenticity can be established by testimony that the item is

what its proponent represents it to be.   Commonwealth v. Nardi,

452 Mass. 379, 396 (2008).   There was ample testimony, at trial

and at the motion to suppress hearing, as to how the video was

created and how it came into police custody.     And, most

importantly, the defendant's trial counsel did challenge the

admission of the video -- by filing a motion to suppress, a

motion to reconsider the denial of the motion to suppress, and

an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Commonwealth v. F.W., 465 Mass. 1, 2 (2013).

held, and the trial counsel's affidavit stated, the defendant
privately funded his defense and was not eligible for court-
approved funds.

                                 6
       2.   Sufficiency of the evidence.   The defendant raises a

number of arguments claiming that there was insufficient

evidence to support his convictions.       However, the defendant

already challenged the sufficiency of the evidence in his direct

appeal.     A panel of this court concluded that the "evidence was

overwhelming" and affirmed his convictions.      Watt, 87 Mass. App.

Ct. at 1122.    The claims raised by the defendant are precluded

by direct estoppel.     Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 443 Mass. 707,

710 (2005).

       Conclusion.   The orders entered July 3, 2020, and September

13, 2021, denying the motions for new trial are affirmed.      The

order entered October 21, 2021, denying the motion for

reconsideration is affirmed.

                                       So ordered.

                                       By the Court (Henry,
                                         Desmond & Englander, JJ.6),

                                       Clerk

Entered:    June 27, 2023.

6   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                   7