Commonwealth v. Turner

102 Mass.App.Ct. 1104

200 N.E.3d 530 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH

v.Benjamin TURNER.

21-P-1060

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Entered: December 13, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Following a jury trial in the Superior Court, and pursuant to G. L. c. 123A, § 12, the defendant, Benjamin Turner, was adjudged a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and committed to the Massachusetts Treatment Center for an indeterminate period of from one day to life. Concluding that we cannot use the jury's postverdict statement to impeach the verdict and that, even if we could, the statement does not in any way prove that the jury believed it was the defendant's burden to prove he was not sexually dangerous, we affirm.

Background. The procedural history of the case is not disputed, and there is no disagreement about the state of the evidence or the substance of the judge's jury instructions. On the final day of deliberations, the jury sent the judge a note stating in pertinent part, "We would like to add a comment on the verdict either as noted on the verdict slip or for you to read aloud to the Court." After hearing from the Commonwealth and the defendant, the judge responded in writing to the jury, "Dear jurors: No. The rules of Court limit the jury's speaking to a simple announcement of the verdict and no more. After you deliver your verdict, pursuant to my usual practice, I will meet with the jurors. If you wish after speaking with me to speak with the lawyers, I will make them available to you for that purpose, and also will be happy to discuss with you what other options you may have." The defendant did not object to the judge's written response. The jury subsequently found the defendant to be an SDP. The judge imposed the statutorily mandated commitment of one day to life.

Thereafter, the clerk, the judge, and the attorneys went to the jury room and the foreperson informed them that they had written a statement down on a piece of paper. The note read in pertinent part, "We agree that during his incarceration Mr. Turner has not learned to adequately manage his antisocial personality disorder. We believe that with this civil commitment to a treatment center Mr. Turner is being given an opportunity and additional time to learn the skills to manage his personality disorder, as well as the strategies necessary to make him sexually safe in society."²

Discussion. After a verdict has been affirmed by a jury and recorded by the clerk, it is final. See Commonwealth v. DiBenedetto, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 682, 685 (2019). A verdict cannot be vacated based on a "juror's change of heart nor a juror's subsequent disclosure of a subjective disagreement with her apparent vote." Commonwealth v. Dias, 419 Mass. 698, 703 (1995). "Impeaching a duly recorded verdict by subsequent inquiry into the jurors’ deliberations has long been prohibited." DiBenedetto, supra at 685.³ "[I]t is essential to the freedom and independence of their deliberations that their discussions in the jury room should be kept secret and inviolable; and to admit the testimony of jurors to what took place there would create distrust, embarrassment and uncertainty." Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192, 196 (1979), quoting Woodward v. Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453, 460 (1871).

The defendant asks us to infer from the postverdict statement that the jury misunderstood the judge's clear instructions regarding the Commonwealth's burden of proof. We could not make such an inquiry even if there had been a clear statement by the jury that they believed it was the defendant...