Commonwealth v. Beaulieu (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-178-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 15-P-69 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. DONNA BEAULIEU. No. 15-P-69. Essex. April 12, 2016. – December 21, 2016. Present: Cohen, Rubin, & Hanlon, JJ. Assault and Battery. Practice, Criminal, New trial, Comment by judge, Disqualification of judge, Assistance of counsel. Evidence, Prior misconduct, Identification. Identification. Complaint received and sworn to in the Lynn Division of the District Court Department on April 24, 2013. The case was tried before Albert S. Conlon, J., and a motion for a new trial was heard by him. Andrew P. Power for the defendant. Marcia H. Slingerland, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. HANLON, J. After a jury trial, the defendant, Donna Beaulieu, was convicted of assault and battery on her teenage daughter.[1] Approximately one week later, the victim recanted; the defendant then filed a motion for a new trial based solely on the recantation. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion was denied. The defendant now appeals from the denial of her motion for a new trial, arguing that the judge abused his discretion by “berating” the recanting witness and threatening her with incarceration for testifying in support of the defendant’s motion. The defendant also appeals from her underlying conviction on three grounds. First, she argues that the judge abused his discretion by admitting evidence at trial of prior bad acts. Second, she alleges counsel was ineffective for failing to object to that evidence and for calling a police witness who gave damaging testimony. Finally, the defendant contends that the judge erred in denying her motion for a required finding of not guilty, given what she describes as a lack of identification evidence at trial. We affirm. Background. a. The trial. The jury heard the following evidence. On April 22, 2013, the victim, a middle school honor student, became ill at school; she went to the school nurse’s office, and, afterwards, her mother picked her up and took her home. When she arrived at home, she rested on the couch for a few hours, then had dinner and started working on her homework in the kitchen. At some point later, her mother called her into the living room; her mother was “frustrated” because she was having difficulty using a Web site relating to their cellular telephones. When the victim came into the […]