Commonwealth v. McEachern

COMMONWEALTH v. PATRICIA M. MCEACHERN.

14-P-1261

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

November 10, 2015

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The defendant was convicted of one count of assault and battery by a jury in the District Court. On appeal she assigns error to the introduction of certain evidence and to statements contained in the prosecutor's closing argument. We refer to the facts as the jury could find them and as they inform our discussion of the issues.

Evidentiary issues. The victim was allowed to testify in part to the effects of the injuries she sustained. This evidence was probative of the victim's claim, disputed by the defendant, that she had been physically attacked by the defendant. The defendant asserts that the charge of assault and battery was based on a claim that the defendant slapped the victim. However the record demonstrates that the charge was based on a claim that the defendant slapped the victim and, almost simultaneously, slammed the victim's head against a washer-dryer. The alleged level of violence clearly made the resulting degree of injury probative. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gaudette, 441 Mass. 762, 771-772 (2004) (extent of victim's injuries probative of speed of defendant's vehicle and his intent to hit victim). Further, the judge appropriately exercised her discretion to balance the probative nature of the evidence with the resulting prejudice; she allowed evidence of short-term health impacts in evidence, but excluded long-term "ongoing" health issues. We discern no error.

The defendant also complains of prejudicial error in the admission of testimony relating to uncharged conduct. The evidence in question, however, related to the events surrounding, and relevant to, the assaultive behavior.¹ The defendant was on notice that the course of conduct throughout the evening in question was, if not the actual basis of the single charge of assault and battery, certainly relevant to her altercation with the victim and to the parties' dispute at trial over what occurred on the evening in question. "The prosecution was entitled to present as full a picture as possible of the events surrounding the incident itself." Commonwealth v.Bradshaw, 385 Mass. 244, 269-270 (1982), quoting from Commonwealth v. Chalifoux, 362 Mass. 811, 816 (1973).

Both the victim's mother and the defendant's daughter became involved in the struggle between the victim and the defendant. And both the victim and the defendant called 911 thereafter.²

Prosecutor's closing argument. The Commonwealth's closing referred to the victim's mother's testimony at trial that she was frustrated with the police handling of the case and that she had "fought tooth and nail" over a four-year period to ensure the case would come to trial. Defense counsel used this testimony to undermine the credibility of the victim and her mother, and to suggest that experienced police officers had concluded that the defendant's version of events was the more credible.³

In response, the prosecutor made the following statement:

"[W]hat I'm going to say is not something I say lightly or that I hardly ever say, given my position as an assistantdistrict attorney in close -- somewhat of a close working relationship with the Wrentham police. But in the great scheme of things it doesn't matter that the Wrentham police didn't believe [the victim's mother] or didn't want to do anything about [her requests for additional police work.] . . . Because she says she fought tooth and nail . . . to get this matter to court."

On appeal the defendant characterizes...