Commonwealth v. Hammond (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-122-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC-12096 COMMONWEALTH vs. AMANDA L. HAMMOND. Plymouth. October 6, 2016. – July 21, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, & Cypher, JJ. Rape. Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Sentence, Sex offender. Due Process of Law, Sentence, Sex offender. Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act. Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Videotape, Sexual conduct. Practice, Criminal, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Redaction, Argument by prosecutor, Sentence. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on August 10, 2012. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Richard J. Chin, J.; the cases were tried before Cornelius J. Moriarty, II, J., and a motion for postverdict relief was heard by him. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Nancy A. Dolberg, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Stacey L. Gauthier, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. LOWY, J. The defendant, a twenty-two year old woman, was convicted of raping a fourteen year old boy and two thirteen year old boys, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 23. On appeal, the defendant claims that there were three main defects with her prosecution: (1) the incriminating statements she made to police should have been suppressed; (2) the video recording of these statements that was shown at trial should have been further redacted; and (3) the prosecutor’s closing argument was improper. In addition, the defendant contends that the trial judge’s lack of authority to relieve her from registering as a sex offender under G. L. c. 6, § 178E (f), constitutes a due process violation, as applied to her. We conclude that there was no reversible error and affirm the convictions. We further conclude that, based upon the record before us, there is no as-applied due process violation. Background. We summarize the evidence the Commonwealth adduced at trial, reserving further details for discussion of the specific issues raised on appeal. The charges in this case stem from two separate but related episodes that took place in June, 2012, in Brockton. The first episode began when the defendant met up with two of the victims, Roy,[1] then age thirteen, and David, then age fourteen,[2] in a park. The boys, whom she knew before these events, accompanied […]