Commonwealth v. Bundy (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-107-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑11232 COMMONWEALTH vs. JEFFERY BUNDY.[1] Bristol. February 5, 2013. ‑ June 13, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Minor. Obscenity, Child pornography. Practice, Criminal, Required finding. Evidence, Sexual conduct, Expert opinion. Witness, Expert. Words, “Live performance.” Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 11, 2008. The case was tried before Robert J. Kane, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Diana Cowhey-McDermott for the defendant. William R. Connolly, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. IRELAND, C.J. On November 4, 2010, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant, Jeffery Bundy, on an amended indictment charging him with posing or exhibiting a child in a state of sexual conduct, G. L. c. 272, § 29A (b).[2] The case was tried under the “live performance” prong of the statute. Represented by new counsel on appeal, the defendant argues that the judge erroneously denied his motion for a required finding because the Commonwealth did not prove that the victim’s conduct satisfied the statutory definition of a “live performance.” The defendant also maintains that expert testimony was required to aid the jury in understanding how the alleged “live performance” had occurred. We transferred the appeal to this court on our own motion. Because we reject the defendant’s arguments, we affirm the judge’s order denying the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty and affirm his conviction. 1. Background. Based on the Commonwealth’s evidence, considered under the standard set forth in Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979), the jury could have found the following facts.[3] The conduct occurred in 2008, when the victim, a boy, was ten years of age. The defendant was thirty-four years of age. The victim and the defendant each owned “Xbox” video game consoles that allowed them to connect over the Internet for the purpose of playing multiplayer video games. Players who own a “vision camera” and headset also may engage in private “live chat.” These accessories are plugged into various ports of the Xbox. The camera is then mounted anywhere in the range of its connecting cable. Assuming two players are engaging in private live chat, the camera displays two images on the television screen, the […]