Commonwealth v. Hampton (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-095-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 16-P-1355 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. RAYMOND HAMPTON. No. 16-P-1355. Barnstable. June 5, 2017. – July 24, 2017. Present: Sullivan, Henry, & Shin, JJ. Indecent Assault and Battery. Minor. Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Relevancy and materiality. Complaint received and sworn to in the Barnstable Division of the District Court Department on November 2, 2015. The case was tried before John M. Julian, J. Darla J. Mondou for the defendant. Elizabeth M. Carey, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. SULLIVAN, J. The defendant, Raymond Hampton, appeals from his conviction of indecent assault and battery on a minor under the age of fourteen, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13B.[1] The defendant contends that the trial judge abused his discretion when he allowed the Commonwealth to introduce evidence that the defendant had watched adult pornography. We agree that the admission of this evidence was error, but, under the circumstances presented, we affirm. Background. Adele[2] testified that she lived at home with her parents, her sister, other tenants, and the defendant. The defendant was the child’s great uncle. While living in the home, the defendant slept in a bedroom belonging to Adele and her sister. For this reason, the sisters slept on the couch or with their parents. The sisters often went back to the bedroom to play games, get toys, or watch movies on the defendant’s computer. On October 1, 2015, Adele, then nine years old, was in the defendant’s room, when the defendant grabbed her wrist tightly. At trial she testified that he put her hand under his clothes, forcing her to touch the skin of his penis. Before trial, Adele told an interviewer that the defendant forced her to touch him over his clothes. Adele also testified at trial that the defendant touched her chest, a fact not previously reported. Adele told her sister about the incident the next day, but told her not to tell anybody. The second reported incident occurred on October 4, 2015. Adele testified that the defendant touched her vagina with his finger, under her clothes, and caused her to bleed. The defendant told her not tell anybody about what happened. Adele told her sister about this incident at some later point. Adele did not tell anyone else about the incidents until October 21, […]
Commonwealth v. Hampton (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-125-15)
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 13-P-1938 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. TERRANCE HAMPTON. No. 13-P-1938. Hampden. January 13, 2015. – September 2, 2015. Present: Trainor, Rubin, & Sullivan, JJ. Practice, Criminal, New trial, Assistance of counsel, Witness. Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel. Due Process of Law, Assistance of counsel. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on August 12, 2008. Following review by this court, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2012), a motion for a new trial was heard by Constance M. Sweeney, J. Stephanie A. Hoeplinger for the defendant. Cynthia Cullen Payne, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. SULLIVAN, J. Following an order of remand,[1] a judge of the Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The defendant had been convicted of assaulting a correctional officer. See G. L. c. 127, § 38B. His defense at trial was that the correctional officer used excessive force and was the first aggressor. At issue in the motion and on appeal is whether counsel was ineffective in failing to interview a fellow inmate who claimed that he had observed a portion of the altercation, and that the defendant had not been the first aggressor. The motion judge, who was also the trial judge, denied the motion on the basis that counsel made a reasonable strategic decision, and that the witness was not credible. We reverse. 1. Background. a. Pretrial investigation by defense counsel. The defendant was charged with assault and battery on a correctional officer at the Hampden County house of correction in Ludlow. Before the trial, the defendant told trial counsel that a fellow inmate, Deven Gallop, witnessed the events in question. Trial counsel filed a pretrial discovery motion to name any persons present during the incident. The Commonwealth provided a list with the names of the correctional officers, but it did not include Gallop’s name. Trial counsel accepted the Commonwealth’s representation. Neither she nor her investigator interviewed Gallop or visited the intake unit where the incident took place. Before jury empanelment, the defendant moved to discharge trial counsel, asserting that she failed to investigate the potential eye witness and was thus ill-prepared to present his defense. The motion was denied and the case proceeded to trial. b. The trial. At trial, the […]