Posts tagged "Cahoon"

Commonwealth v. Cahoon (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-112-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   12-P-1999                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  KEVIN F. CAHOON. No. 12-P-1999. Barnstable.     February 3, 2014. – September 10, 2014.     Present:  Cohen, Hines, & Maldonado, JJ.[1] Sex Offender.  Constitutional Law, Sex offender, Self-incrimination.  Evidence, Sex offender.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 17, 2011.   The case was tried before Robert C. Rufo, J.     Joseph M. Kenneally for the defendant. Julia K. Holler, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.      COHEN, J.  After a jury trial in Superior Court, the defendant was found to be a sexually dangerous person (SDP), pursuant to G. L. c. 123A, § 12.  The defendant’s appeal presents two issues:  (1) whether his motion for a directed verdict should have been allowed on the ground that the Commonwealth failed to establish that he is likely to reoffend sexually; and (2) whether the admission (without objection) of evidence that he terminated his participation in sex offender treatment entitles him to a new trial.  We affirm.  Background.  On January 22, 1992, the defendant was convicted of one count of rape of a child and one count of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen years of age, arising from the molestation of his girlfriend’s three and one-half year old daughter.[2]  Eight years into his sentence, on March 9, 2000, the defendant signed a waiver of confidentiality and began participating in sex offender treatment.  He completed phases one and two; however, on June 1, 2001, he refused further treatment and therefore did not complete phases three and four.[3] On the issue of sexual dangerousness, the Commonwealth presented two expert witnesses, Dr. Carol Feldman, who testified as a forensic psychologist retained by the Commonwealth, and Dr. Michael Henry, who was assigned as a qualified examiner in the case.  Dr. Feldman testified that the defendant “dropped out” and “refused” further treatment; Dr. Henry also testified that that the defendant “quit” and “dropped out.”  Both experts linked the failure of the defendant to complete treatment to his risk of reoffense. The defendant presented four experts:  Dr. Leonard Bard, Dr. Joseph Plaud, Dr. Katrin Rouse-Weir, and Dr. Michael Murphy, who was the other qualified examiner in the case.  These experts also commented upon the limited extent of the defendant’s treatment, and one of them, Dr. Rouse-Weir, testified that “dropping out” of treatment is a factor […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 10, 2014 at 7:15 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,