Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to redact inadmissible hearsay statements by the defendant's alleged victim's mother from medical records. Because the hearsay bolstered the victim's credibility on the central issue at trial and was admitted without a limiting instruction, the court reversed the order denying a new trial, vacated the convictions, set aside the verdicts, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to seek redaction of the mother's inadmissible hearsay statement from the medical records.
- Whether the improperly admitted hearsay likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defense under the Saferian standard.
- Whether the order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial should be reversed and the convictions vacated.
Holdings
- Trial counsel's failure to seek redaction of the mother's statement from the medical records was unreasonable performance because the statement was inadmissible hearsay and counsel acknowledged that omitting the redaction was an oversight.
- The admission of the mother's detailed hearsay statement deprived the defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defense because Sue's credibility was the central issue and the hearsay repeated and bolstered her allegations.
- The order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial must be reversed; the judgments of conviction must be vacated; the verdicts must be set aside; and the case must be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Key quotations
“We conclude that because trial counsel failed to object to what amounted to inadmissible hearsay that bolstered Sue's credibility –- the central issue in the case -– the defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel.” (2)
“The admission of hearsay that provides the only significant corroboration of an alleged victim's accusation without a limiting instruction creates a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.” (11)
“The order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial is reversed. The judgments are vacated, the verdicts are set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (12)
Factual background
The defendant was convicted of three counts of indecent assault and battery on a thirteen-year-old child, Sue, who testified that he sexually assaulted her in his vehicle on two occasions. Sue's credibility was the central issue at trial, and medical records admitted into evidence included her mother's hearsay account repeating specific details of Sue's allegations. The trial judge had ruled that Sue's mother could not testify as a substitute first complaint witness, but trial counsel failed to ensure that the mother's detailed hearsay statement was redacted from the medical records. No first complaint witness testified, and the jury received no limiting instruction concerning the hearsay.
Procedural history
The defendant was charged in the New Bedford Division of the District Court Department and tried before Judge Douglas J. Darnbrough. Following his convictions, he filed a motion for a new trial on June 22, 2023. Judge Joseph P. Harrington, Jr., who was not the trial judge, conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion. The Appeals Court concluded that trial counsel's failure to seek redaction of inadmissible hearsay from medical records deprived the defendant of effective assistance.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including a new trial in the Commonwealth's discretion.