Commonwealth v. Parent (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-101-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑11181 COMMONWEALTH vs. JOHN PARENT. Middlesex. February 4, 2013. ‑ June 10, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Indecent Assault and Battery. Delinquent Child. Evidence, Prior inconsistent statement, First complaint, Bias, Relevancy and materiality, Presumptions and burden of proof. Rape‑Shield Statute. Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel, Argument by counsel, Presumptions and burden of proof, Instructions to jury, Question by jury. Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel, Burden of proof. Alcoholic Liquors. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on May 26, 2009. The cases were tried before Elizabeth M. Fahey, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Michael Tumposky for the defendant. Anne Pogue Donohue, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. GANTS, J. A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant, John Parent, on three indictments: the first alleged indecent assault and battery on a fourteen year old friend of his daughter (victim) in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13H; and the latter two alleged that he contributed to the delinquency of a child, in violation of G. L. c. 119, § 63. The second indictment rested solely on the theory that the defendant violated G. L. c. 138, § 34, by delivering, procuring, and furnishing alcohol to the victim; and the third rested solely on the defendant’s delivery of alcohol to his own fifteen year old daughter. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial judge erred by (1) barring defense counsel from eliciting from a police detective certain statements made by the victim in an interview conducted four days after the indecent assault and battery that were inconsistent with the victim’s trial testimony; (2) allowing “second complaint” testimony to be admitted at trial; (3) limiting inquiry into matters that the defendant contends would have revealed a motive for the victim to fabricate her allegations; and (4) denying the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty on the indictment alleging that he had delivered alcohol to his own daughter. The defendant also argues that his counsel was ineffective because he declared in his opening statement that he would prove certain facts and asserted in his closing argument that he had proved those facts, thereby suggesting that the defendant had accepted […]