Commonwealth v. Jones

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Robert Jones's convictions for indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen and dissemination of matter harmful to minors. The court construed the pre-2011 version of G. L. c. 272, § 28, to implicitly require knowledge that the recipient of harmful material was a minor, thereby rejecting the defendant's facial overbreadth challenge. The court also held that improper prosecutorial comments concerning possible future offenses did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice in context.

Holdings

1. The court construed the pre-2011 version of § 28 to include an implied scienter element requiring the defendant to know that the recipient of the harmful matter was a minor. As construed, the statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad.
2. The omission of an express instruction on knowledge that the recipient was a minor did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice because the defendant knew J.B. very well and J.B. was well below eighteen years old.
3. The prosecutor's suggestion that the defendant would have committed additional sexual offenses against C.J. if C.J. had not moved away was improper because it invited speculation about uncharged conduct. Nevertheless, in the context of the entire closing argument, the judge's instructions, and the strong evidence of guilt, the remarks did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether G. L. c. 272, § 28, as it existed during the charged conduct, was facially overbroad under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights because it did not expressly require knowledge that the recipient of harmful matter was a minor.
2. Whether the defendant's conviction under § 28 could stand when the jury instructions did not expressly identify knowledge that the recipient was a minor as an element of the offense.
3. Whether the prosecutor's closing argument improperly invited the jury to speculate that the defendant would have committed additional sexual offenses against C.J. if C.J. had not moved away, thereby creating a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Disposition

affirmed