Posts tagged "1013116"

Commonwealth v. Mayotte (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-131-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   SJC-11894   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  LINDA MAYOTTE.       Worcester.     January 7, 2016. – August 19, 2016.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.[1]     Rape.  Indecent Assault and Battery.  Child Abuse.  Incest.  Reckless Endangerment of a Child.  Intimidation of Witness.  Evidence, First complaint, State of mind, Impeachment of credibility, Prior inconsistent statement.  Witness, Intimidation, Impeachment.  Practice, Criminal, Sentence.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 18, 2010.   The cases were tried before Richard T. Tucker, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Eric S. Brandt, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Ellyn H. Lazar-Moore, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     HINES, J.  A jury convicted the defendant, Linda Mayotte, of rape of a child, G. L. c. 265, § 23 (three indictments); indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen, G. L. c. 265, § 13B (five indictments); indecent assault and battery on a child over the age of fourteen, G. L. c. 265, § 13H (five indictments); incest, G. L. c. 272, § 17; reckless endangerment of a child, G. L. c. 265, § 13L; intimidation of a witness, G. L. c. 268, § 13B; resisting arrest, G. L. c. 268, § 32B; and unlawful possession of a firearm without a firearm identification card, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h).[2]  The victim in each of the charged sex offenses was her adopted son, D.M.[3]  The defendant challenges the convictions on three grounds:  (1) error in the exclusion of first complaint evidence relating to her defense that she was the victim, not the perpetrator, of rape by the complainant; (2) error in the exclusion of a statement proffered as evidence of the victim’s state of mind; and (3) insufficiency of the evidence to prove the reckless endangerment indictment based on “serious bodily injury.”  The defendant also challenges her sentence, claiming that the judge may have been influenced by improper factors argued by the prosecutor.  Because the application of the first complaint doctrine to a defendant in a rape prosecution is a question of first impression, we granted the defendant’s application for direct appellate review of all her claims. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the first complaint rule is a neutral rule of evidence that permits such testimony whenever the credibility of a sexual assault allegation is at issue.  Although […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 19, 2016 at 7:08 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,