Court Opinion

ID: 9731499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:47:37.637525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:18.686095
License: Public Domain

Braucher, J.
(dissenting). Pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 16A, the Commonwealth moved for a closed hearing at the request of the minor victim-witnesses at a rape trial. *877The defendant did not take advantage of the judge’s invitation to state reasons for his objection, stating only that he was entitled to an “open hearing.” He claimed an exception, but made no suggestion that the trial should be open while witnesses other than the minor victims were testifying, and he took no steps to have the record show whether the public was excluded while other witnesses were testifying. It is thus apparent that his present contention is an afterthought never presented to the trial judge. Thus the error he claims is not properly before us, and it is not a proper basis for reversal or remand.
I recognize that it is within our power to take corrective action on the basis of an error not properly presented to us, if there is a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, particularly if the error is of constitutional dimension. But under the court’s opinion in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, supra, any error consisted merely of a misinterpretation of the statute, or, conceivably, an abuse of the judge’s discretion to order closure. In any event, there is not the slightest suggestion that any such error had any bearing on the determination of the innocence or guilt of the defendant.
I would affirm the convictions.