Commonwealth v. Cheremond

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for murder in the first degree and aggravated rape. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the aggravated rape charge, including the absence of consent, and rejected challenges to the grand-jury proceedings and the motion for a required finding of not guilty. The court also addressed the admission of prior relationship evidence, the victim’s statements concerning her state of mind, and confrontation and hearsay issues.

Holdings

1. The motion to dismiss the aggravated-rape indictment was properly denied because the grand jury heard sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that the defendant committed aggravated rape, including evidence from which it could infer that the victim did not consent.
2. The defendant could not obtain dismissal of the felony-murder theory based on the alleged insufficiency of evidence of lack of consent because he did not challenge the murder indictment in the trial court and a murder indictment using the statutory form charged murder regardless of the particular theory presented to the grand jury.
3. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent to sexual or unnatural sexual intercourse with the defendant.
4. The victim's statements and related evidence were admissible, when limited to showing her state of mind and whether she would have consented to intercourse, because they were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted and were relevant to the issue of consent.
5. The abuse prevention order and related summons were properly admitted, with limiting instructions, to show the nature of the relationship between the victim and defendant and the defendant's motive to kill.
6. The victim's affidavit and statements to her brother should not have been admitted to prove the defendant's motive or the nature of the parties' relationship, but the errors were harmless and did not warrant reversal.
7. The prosecutor's closing argument did not require reversal because the challenged arguments either fairly tracked the evidence or, although improper in part, were not sufficiently prejudicial to create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the aggravated-rape indictment should have been dismissed because the evidence presented to the grand jury was insufficient to establish probable cause that the sexual intercourse was nonconsensual.
2. Whether the felony-murder theory was invalid because the grand jury allegedly lacked sufficient evidence of lack of consent.
3. Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support convictions for aggravated rape and felony-murder predicated on aggravated rape.
4. Whether evidence concerning the victim's prior relationship with the defendant, abuse prevention order, and statements about the defendant was inadmissible hearsay, prior-bad-acts evidence, or testimonial evidence violating the Confrontation Clause.
5. Whether the prosecutor's closing argument misstated the evidence, improperly characterized DNA evidence, or improperly used propensity evidence.
6. Whether relief was warranted under the court's plenary review authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Disposition

affirmed