Commonwealth v. Senior

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for attempted subornation of perjury and making a false report to police officers. The court held that the indictment was sufficient because, under the applicable statute, the attempted subornation and overt act were the same, and it found sufficient evidence supporting the conviction. The court also rejected challenges concerning cross-examination of a defense witness and alleged prosecutorial vouching.

Holdings

1. An indictment charging attempted subornation of perjury is sufficient when it tracks the statutory language and the crime itself constitutes the overt act; a separate overt-act allegation is not required in those circumstances.
2. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for attempted subornation of perjury.
3. The defendant was not entitled to relief from the prosecutor's question concerning the defense witness's failure to report exculpatory information because the objection was untimely and the judge's instruction cured any potential problem, eliminating a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
4. The prosecutor did not improperly vouch for Bragg's credibility by arguing, based on the trial evidence and in response to the defense attack, that Bragg had testified truthfully.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the indictment for attempted subornation of perjury was insufficient because it did not separately allege an overt act.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for attempted subornation of perjury.
3. Whether the prosecutor improperly impeached a defense witness with her pretrial silence without first laying the required foundation.
4. Whether the prosecutor improperly vouched for Bragg's credibility during closing argument.

Disposition

affirmed