Commonwealth v. Kennedy (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-025-18)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12345 COMMONWEALTH vs. CHRISTOPHER J. KENNEDY. Hampshire. October 3, 2017. – February 9, 2018. Present (Sitting at Greenfield): Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, & Kafker, JJ. Indecent Assault and Battery. Indecent Exposure. Assault and Battery. Mistake. Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury, Jury and jurors, Voir dire, Challenge to jurors. Jury and Jurors. Evidence, First complaint. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on October 15, 2014. The cases were tried before Daniel A. Ford, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Merritt Schnipper for the defendant. Cynthia M. Von Flatern, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: David Rangaviz, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Committee for Public Counsel Services. Thomas J. Carey for Kari Hong & others. Wendy J. Murphy for Women’s and Children’s Advocacy Project at New England Law|Boston. GAZIANO, J. A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen, G. L. c. 265, § 13 H, assault and battery, G. L. c. 265, § 13 A (a), and indecent exposure, G. L. c. 272, § 53. The charges stemmed from an encounter between the victim, M.M., and the defendant, a State trooper, who met on a dating Web site and exchanged flirtatious messages. They arranged to meet in person for coffee, and M.M. agreed to the defendant’s suggestion that they finish their conversation at her apartment. Once inside, the defendant exposed himself to M.M. She immediately informed the defendant that he had the wrong idea, and repeatedly told him, “No.” Despite M.M.’s requests to stop, the defendant advanced toward her, grabbed her wrist, and forced her to touch his penis. She told him, “No means no,” and that he had to leave. He then apologized and left the apartment. At trial, the defendant requested a jury instruction on mistake of fact, asserting that he honestly and reasonably had believed that M.M. had consented to the contact leading to the charges, and would not have been offended by his act of exposing himself. The request was denied. The defendant appeals from the denial and from the admission of what he asserted was unnecessary first complaint evidence. We conclude that the trial judge did not err in declining to give an […]