Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed Salvatore Avalos's convictions for rape of a child and indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen. The court held that the trial judge did not impermissibly restrict cross-examination concerning witness bias, prejudice, motives to lie, diary contents, family relationships, and the defendant's proposed theories of defense. The court concluded that the excluded inquiries were cumulative, speculative, collateral, insufficiently probative, or inadmissible for impeachment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial judge impermissibly restricted defense counsel's cross-examination of Commonwealth witnesses concerning bias, prejudice, and motives to lie.
- Whether the trial judge improperly excluded or limited evidence concerning the relationships among Natasha, Diane, Avalos, and Lucilla; the confrontation over Natasha's diary; Natasha's credibility; and Natasha's alleged desire for a boyfriend.
- Whether the restrictions violated the defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
Holdings
- A trial judge may limit cross-examination concerning possible bias when the further questioning is redundant, the issue has been sufficiently aired, the questioning concerns a collateral matter, the proposed evidence is too speculative, or the evidence is offered only to show the witness's bad character. The judge did not abuse that discretion here.
- A witness's general diary statement that she had lied at some point is not sufficiently probative of her veracity at trial, and particular bad acts involving untruthfulness are inadmissible for impeachment absent a criminal conviction. The trial judge therefore properly excluded the proposed questioning about lying and forgery.
- The trial judge's evidentiary rulings did not violate the defendant's rights under the Sixth Amendment or article 12 because the defendant received adequate opportunity to cross-examine the Commonwealth's witnesses concerning bias and to present his defense.
Key quotations
“Cross-examination of a prosecution witness to show the witness’s bias or prejudice is a matter of right under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and art. 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Commonwealth.” (7)
“Unless there is a criminal conviction, G. L. c. 233, § 21, evidence of “particular bad acts of untruthfulness” is inadmissible for impeachment purposes.” (11)
Factual background
Natasha, the defendant's step-granddaughter, alleged that Avalos sexually abused her over several years, beginning when she was six or seven and ending when she was approximately twelve. The investigation began after Natasha's mother, Diane, discovered and read Natasha's diary, which contained statements about sexual abuse, lying, relationships, and negative feelings toward Diane. At trial, the defense sought to use portions of the diary and questioning about family relationships, marital problems, the diary confrontation, and Natasha's truthfulness to support a theory that Natasha falsely accused Avalos to deflect Diane's anger.
Procedural history
A jury trial resulted in convictions on all six indictments. The defendant appealed from the convictions, asserting violations of his rights to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense under the Sixth Amendment and article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.