Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the defendant's challenge to a prosecutor's allegedly untimely peremptory challenge was not preserved because the objection did not clearly identify the asserted violation of Superior Court Rule 6. The court further held that, under G. L. c. 234A, § 74, an irregularity in jury selection requires both a timely objection and special injury or prejudice, which the defendant had not shown.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant preserved an objection that the Commonwealth violated Superior Court Rule 6 by exercising a peremptory challenge against a juror whom it had already had an opportunity to challenge.
- Whether violation of Rule 6 required reversal of the armed-robbery convictions without proof of prejudice.
- Whether G. L. c. 234A, § 74, governed the alleged jury-selection irregularity and required a showing of special injury or prejudice before the verdict could be set aside.
Holdings
- The defendant did not adequately preserve the claimed Rule 6 violation because his objection did not clearly make that ground known to the trial judge.
- Even assuming the objection was properly preserved, the alleged irregularity did not require reversal because G. L. c. 234A, § 74, requires both a timely objection and special injury or prejudice before a verdict may be set aside for an irregularity in jury selection.
- Commonwealth v. Brown was not controlling because it applied a different jury-selection statute, G. L. c. 234, § 32, whereas this case was governed by G. L. c. 234A, § 74.
Key quotations
“Section 74 of G. L. c. 234A set forth in the margin,3 provides that any irregularity in challenging jurors shall not be sufficient to set aside a verdict unless there is a timely objection “and unless the objecting party has been specially injured or prejudiced thereby” (emphasis supplied).” (482)
“General Laws c. 234A, § 74, lists irregularities injury selection, and in contrast to G. L. c. 234, § 32, the statute applicable in the Brown case, requires that there be both an objection and special injury or prejudice before a verdict can be set aside on those grounds.” (482)
Factual background
During jury selection in Suffolk County, the prosecutor challenged a juror after questioning whether a fatal automobile accident disclosed on the juror questionnaire had involved a court case. Defense counsel objected, referring to the racial composition of the jury and the timing of the challenge, and later asked that the objections be noted. The defendant did not claim prejudice from the alleged procedural irregularity.
Procedural history
During jury selection, the trial judge permitted the Commonwealth to exercise a peremptory challenge against a juror whom the prosecutor had previously had an opportunity to challenge. The defendant objected, but the Appeals Court concluded that the objection did not clearly alert the trial judge to the Rule 6 violation. The court further held that, even if the objection had been properly preserved, reversal was unavailable because the defendant showed no special injury or prejudice under G. L. c. 234A, § 74.