Posts tagged "Bradshaw"

Commonwealth v. Bradshaw (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-090-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   12-P-897                                        Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  CHRISTOPHER BRADSHAW. No. 12-P-897. Middlesex.     October 9, 2013. – July 29, 2014. Present:  Cypher, Katzmann, & Maldonado, JJ.     Indecent Assault and Battery.  Dangerous Weapon.  Evidence, Relevancy and materiality, Motive, State of mind, Intent, Inflammatory evidence, Knife.  Intent.  Practice, Criminal, State of mind.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on April 29, 2010.   One case was tried before Diane M. Kottmyer, J., and one case was tried before Paul A. Chernoff, J.     Bruce Ferg, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Fawn D. Balliro Andersen, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     KATZMANN, J.  A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen, G. L. c. 265, § 13B, as a lesser included offense of aggravated rape of a child, G. L. c. 265, § 23A(a).  A second Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of carrying a dangerous weapon when arrested upon a warrant, G. L. c. 269, § 10(b).  In this consolidated appeal, the central question is whether the admission of the defendant’s statement that he was attracted to younger boys — a category that includes the victim — was reversible error because it amounted to impermissible character or propensity evidence suggesting that the defendant was likely to have committed the sexual assault.  The defendant also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the dangerous weapon conviction.  We affirm. Background.  1.  The party incident.  The first jury could have found the following.  On the evening of April 1, 2010, the defendant attended a party at the townhouse of the victim’s mother, Mona.[1]  The victim, Billy, lived in the townhouse with Mona and his sister, Sarah.  At the time of the incident, Billy was nine years old and Sarah was twelve.  During the party, several adults — including the defendant and Nirva Guirand, a friend of the defendant and of Mona — were gathered upstairs in the mother’s bedroom and drinking alcohol.  At the relevant time, Billy was asleep on the couch downstairs in the living room.  Sarah testified that she left her bedroom late at night to go down to the kitchen.  When she had partially descended the flight of stairs, she saw Billy lying asleep on the living room couch.[2]  She saw that his shirt was raised and […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 29, 2014 at 5:15 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,