Massachusetts District Attorneys Association the massachusetts prosecutors’ manual: domestic violence & sexual assault
Yüklə 1,82 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 6.4.2.Motion for Victim and/or Witness Confidentiality (and Accompanying Affidavit)
- 6.4.3.Motion to Conduct a Voir Dire Regarding Defendant’s Character/Reputation Evidence
6.4. OTHER PROCEDURAL MOTIONS6.4.1.Motion for Joinder (and Accompanying Memorandum of Law)COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS __________, SS ______COURT DEPARTMENT NO. _____________ COMMONWEALTH V. ________________________________ COMMONWEALTH’S MOTION FOR JOINDER PURSUANT TO MASSACHUSETTS RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 9(a)(3) Pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 9(a)(3), the Commonwealth moves for joinder of indictment numbers ____________ and ____________ relative to the above named defendant. As reason therefore, the Commonwealth states: 1. The offenses are related; 2. Joinder is in the best interest of justice; 3. Both sets of indictments are scheduled for ___________ on __________.
For the Commonwealth, ___________________________ DISTRICT ATTORNEY ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant District Attorney ___________________________ ___________________________ Dated: _____________ ___________________________
NO. _____________ COMMONWEALTH V. ________________________________ COMMONWEALTH’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JOINDER PURSUANT TO MASS. R. CRIM. P. 9(a)(3) STATEMENT OF THE FACTS In domestic violence cases, or sexual assault cases involving the same defendant and the same victim:
In sexual assault cases involving multiple victims:
ARGUMENT Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 9(a)(3) requires joinder of related offenses for trial unless joinder is not in the best interests of justice. Criminal offenses are related where they are “based on the same criminal conduct or episode or arise out of a course of conduct or series of criminal episodes connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.” Mass. R. Crim. P. 9(a)(1). In determining whether offenses are “related,” the Court should consider “whether the crimes are similar in nature and whether the same evidence would be admissible to prove each charge.” Commonwealth v. Montanez, 410 Mass. 290, 303 (1991); Commonwealth v. Mamay, 407 Mass. 412, 417 (1990). Joinder is a matter to be resolved by the trial judge in his discretion. Commonwealth v. Hoppin, 387 Mass. 25, 32 (1982); Commonwealth v. Mamay, 407 Mass. 412, 414 (1990). “The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that prejudice will result from a failure to sever the charges. Commonwealth v. Gallison, 383 Mass. 659, 671 (1981). Indeed, Mass. R.Crim.P. 9(a)(3), provides that where offenses are related, “[t]he trial judge shall join the charges for trial unless he determines that joinder is not in the best interests of justice.” Commonwealth v. Delaney, 425 Mass. 587, 593-594 (1997). “In addition to applying the ‘technical requirements’ of Rule 9 ... a judge must decide the question in the context of the guarantee of a fair trial for every defendant.” Commonwealth v. Sylvester, 388 Mass. 749, 758 (1983). “In particular, the propriety of joining any one of the indictments, turns, in large measure, on whether evidence of the other offenses would have been admissible at a separate trial on each indictment.” Commonwealth v. Gallison, 383 Mass. 659, 672 (1981). It is settled that evidence of other criminal conduct is inadmissible to prove the propensity of the defendant to commit the charged offense. Id. Such evidence can be used, however, to show a common scheme, pattern of operation, absence of accident or mistake, identity, intent, or motive. Commonwealth v. Helfant, 398 Mass. 214, 224. Commonwealth v. Mamay, supra at 417; Commonwealth v. Pillai, 445 Mass. 175 (2005). Domestic violence is, by definition, an escalating course of violent, criminal conduct, used by the abuser as part of a scheme to intimidate and control the victim. It is proper to join for trial domestic violence charges. See Commonwealth v. Delaney, 425 Mass. 587, 594 (1997). In Delaney, the trial judge joined for trial the charges of violating a c. 209A order, stalking, and intimidating a witness. The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the joining of the cases, stating that “the offenses charged demonstrated a pattern of conduct by the defendant toward the victim because of his unhappiness with the ending of their relationship and his desire to reunite with her.” Id. See also Commonwealth v. Feijoo, 419 Mass. 486, 495 (1995) (joinder appropriate where the offenses indicated a scheme whereby the defendant used his position as a karate teacher to induce students to engage in homosexual activity); Commonwealth v. Mamay, 407 Mass. 412, 416 (1990) (joinder appropriate where the offenses indicated a scheme whereby the defendant used his position of authority and trust to commit sexual crimes on female patients visiting his office). Here, the Commonwealth’s evidence supports several related criminal episodes of domestic violence. All of the incidents are interconnected, involved the same victim, and occurred within months of one another. Separate trials of these indictments would necessarily include the same testimony from the Commonwealth’s police and civilian witnesses, and the same documentary evidence of past restraining orders. Juries in both cases will be entitled to consider evidence of the parties’ interaction beyond the specific conduct related to the indictments. See Commonwealth v .Young, 382 Mass. 448, 463 (1981) (rev’d on other grounds). (“It is well for the jury to have a view of the entire relationship between the defendant and the victim.”) Trial of the second case would include evidence elicited in the trial of the first case, as evidence of the prior bad acts of the defendant, to establish his state of mind and pattern of conduct toward the victim. See Commonwealth v. Jordan (No. 1), 397 Mass. 489, 492 (1986) (“Evidence of prior beatings and mistreatment of the victim was probative of the defendant’s mental state and his intent at the time of the offenses.”); Commonwealth v. Walker, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 915, 916 (1992) (Evidence of prior incidents is admissible “in the discretion of the trial judge to show the defendant’s possessive attitude toward the victim and his propensity to be violent toward her.”) Similarly, trial of the first case would include some of the same evidence of violence toward the victim that the Commonwealth would offer in the second case. See Commonwealth v. Myer, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 140, 144 (1995) (Holding that a subsequent, violent episode “would tend to prove that assaulting the complainant was a critical element of the defendant’s hostile relationship with her ... and that his hostility toward the complainant ... was a vital aspect of his ‘state of mind’”.) See also, Commonwealth v. Nardone, 406 Mass. 123, 128 (1989); and Commonwealth v. Robertson, 408 Mass. 747, 751 (1990). “Indeed, if these charges were tried separately, much testimony would be duplicated at each trial merely establishing the relationship between the victim and the defendant.” Delaney, 425 Mass. at 594. The defendant will not be unfairly prejudiced by joinder of these indictments. Both indictments are scheduled for trial, and the defendant was provided with all discovery. “The defendant bears the burden to show that prejudice will result from the failure to sever and that such prejudice is beyond the curative powers of the court’s instructions.” Helfant, at 230. This burden is not satisfied by showing merely that the defendant’s chances for acquittal would be better if the indictments were tried separately. Commonwealth v. Montanez, 410 Mass. 290, 304 (1991).
Respectfully Submitted For the Commonwealth,
DISTRICT ATTORNEY ___________________________ Assistant District Attorney ___________________________ ___________________________ Dated: _____________ 6.4.2.Motion for Victim and/or Witness Confidentiality (and Accompanying Affidavit)COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS __________, SS ____________ COURT DEPARTMENT NO. _____________ COMMONWEALTH V. ________________________________ COMMONWEALTH’S MOTION FOR VICTIM AND/OR WITNESS CONFIDENTIALITY The Commonwealth respectfully moves this Honorable Court to order that no law enforcement agency, prosecutor, defense counsel, or parole, probation or corrections official to disclose or state in open court, except among themselves, the residential address, telephone number, or place of employment or school of ________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________, (victims, family members of victims, or witnesses in the above-captioned case), except as otherwise ordered by the Court. In the alternative, the Commonwealth moves the Court to enter such other order or conditions to maintain limited disclosure of the information as it deems appropriate to protect the privacy and safety of the victims, victims’ family members, and witnesses. See M.G.L. c. 258B, sections 2, 3(d), and 3(h). An affidavit is attached in support of this motion. Respectfully Submitted For the Commonwealth, ___________________________ DISTRICT ATTORNEY ___________________________ Assistant District Attorney ___________________________ date: _____________ ___________________________ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS __________, SS ____________ COURT DEPARTMENT NO. _____________ COMMONWEALTH V. ________________________________ AFFIDAVIT REGARDING COMMONWEALTH’S MOTION FOR VICTIM AND/OR WITNESS CONFIDENTIALITY Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 258B, Sections 2 & 3 I, ___________________________________________, the attorney and/or agent for the Commonwealth with regards to the above referenced matter, state as follows: The District Attorney’s Office/Attorney General’s Office has been informed that ________________________________________________________________, a victim and/or witness and/or family member of a victim/witness in this matter, wishes to request confidentiality in accordance with M.G.L. c. 258B, sections 2(d) and 2(h). The victim/witness/family member seeks confidentiality for the following reasons: Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury on this date. Respectfully Submitted For the Commonwealth, DISTRICT ATTORNEY ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant District Attorney
NO. _____________ COMMONWEALTH
Now comes the Commonwealth in the above-captioned matter and respectfully moves this Honorable Court in limine to conduct a voir dire of any potential character and/or reputation witnesses to be called by the defendant in order to determine whether their testimony is admissible before the jury. As grounds therefore, the Commonwealth states that any such testimony as to the defendant’s (or the victim’s) alleged character and/or reputation may not be admissible under the requirements of applicable statutory and case law. See e.g., Commonwealth v. Healey, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 30, 39-40 (1989). Evidence of irrelevant character traits is not admissible. Commonwealth v. De Vico, 207 Mass. 251 (1911). The court has broad discretion to exclude character evidence that is too remote or based upon the opinion of too limited a group. Commonwealth v. Phachansiri, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 100, 109 (1995). Respectfully Submitted For the Commonwealth, ___________________________ DISTRICT ATTORNEY ___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant District Attorney ___________________________ ___________________________ Date: ______________________ Yüklə 1,82 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|