Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the trial judge erred by giving only the basic portion of the Toney consciousness-of-guilt instruction and omitting the supplemental cautionary instruction after the defendant requested it. Because the evidence may have played a significant role in the conviction, particularly in light of the jury's request for reinstruction, the court reversed the judgment, set aside the verdict, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial judge's failure, after request, to give the supplemental portion of the Toney consciousness-of-guilt instruction constituted reversible error.
- Whether the defendant adequately preserved the instructional-error objection.
Holdings
- When consciousness-of-guilt evidence may have played a significant role in the jury's decision, omission of the supplemental portion of the Toney instruction after the defendant requests it is error requiring a new trial.
- The defendant adequately preserved the request for the supplemental Toney instruction through the objection made at the close of the original jury charge.
Key quotations
“We hold that there was error requiring a new trial. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the verdict is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.” (25 Mass. App. Ct. at 907)
Factual background
The defendant requested the full Toney instruction concerning consciousness-of-guilt evidence. The trial judge gave the basic instruction but omitted the supplemental cautions explaining that such evidence has limited probative value and that innocent persons may sometimes exhibit behavior appearing apprehensive or guilty. After deliberating for four hours, the jury asked to be reinstructed on consciousness-of-guilt evidence, and the judge again gave only the basic portion.
Procedural history
At trial, the judge gave only the basic portion of the Toney instruction and refused the defendant's request for the supplemental cautions concerning the limited probative value of consciousness-of-guilt evidence. After approximately four hours of deliberation, the jury requested reinstruction on the use of that evidence, but the judge again gave only the basic instruction. The Appeals Court reversed the judgment, set aside the verdict, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The judgment is reversed, the verdict is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.