Commonwealth v. Coates (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-086-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 14-P-1547 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. RYAN COATES. No. 14-P-1547. Bristol. March 9, 2016. – July 15, 2016. Present: Cypher, Cohen, & Neyman, JJ. Indecent Assault and Battery. Obscenity, Dissemination of matter harmful to minor. Practice, Criminal, Required finding, Identification of defendant in courtroom. Evidence, Identification, Expert opinion, Relevancy and materiality. Witness, Expert. Identification. Internet. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 21, 2012 and August 9, 2012. The cases were tried before D. Lloyd Macdonald, J. Alexei Tymoczko for the defendant. Shoshana Stern, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. CYPHER, J. A jury convicted the defendant, Ryan Coates, of three counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen, see G. L. c. 265, § 13B, and one count of disseminating matter harmful to a minor, see G. L. c. 272, § 28. On appeal, the defendant argues that the judge erred in excluding expert testimony that the defendant’s personality was inconsistent with the profile of a sex abuser, the Commonwealth’s graphic description of pornography was unduly prejudicial and created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, and the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence of identity to support the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who committed the indecent assaults and batteries.[1] Finding no merit in the defendant’s assertions, we affirm. Background. We summarize the facts that the jury could have found, reserving some details for later discussion of the issues raised by the defendant. The victim, A.E., was five years old at the time of trial. When A.E. was two years old, the defendant, who was her mother’s boy friend, moved in with her and her mother. The defendant was regarded as a father figure to A.E.; the three ate meals together and went on family outings; and the defendant shared parenting duties with A.E.’s mother, putting A.E. to bed at night, picking her up from day care, assisting in her toilet training, and babysitting her when her mother was not at home. Sometime between December, 2009, and May, 2012, before A.E. was toilet trained, the defendant began to sexually assault her. On occasions when A.E.’s mother was not at home, the defendant touched A.E.’s anus with his penis and stood behind her, rocking back and forth.[2] These […]