Com. v. Boyer

• Decision Date: 19 May 1987
• Citation: 400 Mass. 52,507 N.E.2d 1024
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Alen BOYER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 1024

507 N.E.2d 1024

400 Mass. 52

COMMONWEALTH v. Alen BOYER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,

Suffolk.

Argued March 2, 1987.

Decided May 19, 1987.

Esther J. Horwich, for defendant.

David B. Mark, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Com.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and LIACOS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR.

LYNCH, Justice.

After a first instance jury trial in the Boston Municipal Court the defendant was convicted on three complaints of common night walking, G.L. c. 272, § 53 (1984 ed.). ¹ On each complaint he was sentenced to three months in a house of correction, to be served consecutively. A motion for stay of execution was allowed by the Appeals Court. We took the case on our own motion and we affirm.

The defendant claims error in the following: (1) the trial judge's denial of the defendant's motion in limine and the subsequent introduction of a 1979 conviction for prostitution and a 1982 conviction for disorderly conduct; (2) the judge's refusal to conduct an individual voir dire on the issue of prejudice against homosexuals; and (3) the judge's alleged expression of opinion during the trial indicating his bias against the defendant. We address at the outset the defendant's additional objection to the judge's adoption of the Commonwealth's statement of proceedings.

1. Statement of the proceedings. The parties agree that during the judge's empanelling of the jury the tape recorder was not on and, consequently, no transcript exists of that portion of the case. Under Mass.R.A.P. 8(c), as amended, 378 Mass. 932 (1979), where no transcript of the proceedings is available, "the appellant may, within thirty days after the notice of appeal is filed, file a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including his recollection. The statement shall be served on the appellee, who may file objections or proposed amendments thereto within ten days after service." The papers are then submitted to the trial judge "for settlement and approval and as settled and approved shall be included by the clerk of the lower court in the record on appeal." Id.

The defendant served his statement of proceedings on the Commonwealth on June 4, 1985. On July 2, 1985, the defendant filed a motion to have the court accept as conclusive his statement of proceedings, since the Commonwealth had yet to file its statement. The Commonwealth's attorney does not dispute that he failed to submit his statement until August 1, 1985. On August 22, 1985, the judge acknowledged that the Commonwealth's statement was untimely but admitted the statement over the defendant's objection. The only material difference between the statement submitted by the defendant and the one adopted by the judge is that the defendant does not agree that the judge informed the jurors that the defendant was a homosexual male who the evidence might show traveled at night as a transvestite and asked if any juror would have difficulty sitting on such a case. Since the final form of the statement is for the judge, it matters not that the Commonwealth did not file its version within the time prescribed. The statement settled and approved by the judge was consistent with his final charge which is contained in the transcript. We are, therefore, confronted with a dispute between the defendant on one side and the judge and the assistant district attorney on the other as to what was actually said to the jury. We are not prepared, on the record in this case, to adopt the defendant's version.

2. Voir dire. Even assuming that the defendant's version is correct there was no error in the judge's failing to conduct an individual voir dire. The defendant filed a motion for examination of jurors, which was denied with regard to the questions dealing with homosexuality. ² In denying the defendant's motion the judge stated that he thought the questions unduly emphasized the issue of homosexuality and he believed that the statutory questions sufficed. The defendant agrees that the judge told the jury the nature of the offense charged and asked if anyone thought they might have trouble being impartial in such a case. The defendant claims that individual voir dire was mandated by G.L. c. 234, § 28 (1984 ed.), ³ because the defendant was in a class (i.e., homosexuals) against whom jurors might hold "preconceived opinions toward ... credibility."

"[General Laws c. 234, § 28] is designed to impose a duty on the judge to examine jurors fully with respect to possible bias or prejudice if it appears that particular jurors or the jury pool as a whole may be influenced by extraneous factors to the extent that jurors would be unable to render an impartial verdict on the evidence presented to them and must, therefore, be excused for cause." Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 372 Mass. 783, 793, 364 N.E.2d 1052 (1977). There must be some basis for finding that there exists a substantial risk of extraneous influences on the jury. Commonwealth v. Campbell, 378 Mass. 680, 696, 393 N.E.2d 820 (1979). The judge has discretion in deciding whether a foundation has been established for individual voir dire. Commonwealth v. Cameron, 385 Mass. 660, 667, 433 N.E.2d 878 (1982). Commonwealth v. Shelley, 381 Mass. 340, 352, 409 N.E.2d 732 (1980).

This court has held that unless questions are aimed at "revealing racial bias or any similarly indurated and pervasive prejudice," they are not constitutionally required. Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 379 Mass. 810, 821, 401 N.E.2d 342 (1980), quoting Commonwealth v. Bailey, 370 Mass. 388, 399, 348 N.E.2d 746 (1976). See Commonwealth v. Sheline, 391 Mass. 279, 289, 461 N.E.2d 1197 (1984); Commonwealth v. Estremera, 383 Mass. 382, 387, 419 N.E.2d 835 (1981). ⁴ "Absent some reason to suspect that jurors may be so prejudiced ... a judge is warranted in relying upon his final charge to the jury to purge any bias from the jurors prior to their deliberations." Id. at 388, 419 N.E.2d 835. To accept the defendant's contention in this case would be tantamount to ruling that individual voir dire is required in every case involving charges of crimes of a sexual nature against an avowed homosexual. We are not inclined to go so far. This court has rejected the notion that the mere presence of issues related to homosexual activity always necessitates individual voir dire of all potential jurors. Commonwealth v. Shelley, supra 381 Mass. at 353, 409 N.E.2d 732.

While bias against homosexuals may exist among some people, there was nothing presented to the judge to support the defendant's contention that individual voir dire was required. "Ordinarily, it is for the judge to determine when a problem of extraneous influence has arisen. His actions will be upheld unless he has abused his discretion by refusing to examine jurors in the face of a 'substantial risk' of bias." Commonwealth v. Hobbs, 385 Mass. 863, 873, 434 N.E.2d 633 (1982), citing Commonwealth v. Shelley, supra 381 Mass. at 352, 409 N.E.2d 732. There was no basis in the record to require the judge to determine that there was a substantial risk of extraneous influences on the jury. Furthermore, if we were to adopt a new rule requiring individual voir dire, not constitutionally mandated, it would apply only to future cases. Commonwealth v. Hobbs, supra. There was no error.

3. Prior convictions. The defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude from admission his prior convictions. The motion was denied and the Commonwealth introduced at trial a 1982 conviction for disorderly conduct and a 1979 conviction for prostitution. The defendant did not object at trial. The defendant claims that the similarity to the crimes charged made the introduction of evidence of the prior crimes highly prejudicial to him, especially in light of their limited probative value as to credibility. The defendant claims that the problem was exacerbated by the Commonwealth's emphasis on these convictions in closing argument. The Commonwealth claims that there was no prejudice to the defendant, there was no misuse of the convictions in closing arguments, the judge gave appropriate limiting instructions, and any error would be harmless because of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.

Whether to allow the admission of evidence of prior convictions which fall within the statute involves an exercise of discretion which is reviewable by an appellate court. Commonwealth v. Maguire, 392 Mass. 466, 470, 467 N.E.2d 112 (1984). The judge must weigh the danger of unfair prejudice against the probative value of the evidence of a prior conviction for the purposes of impeachment. Id. The danger is most prevalent where the prior conviction is for a crime substantially similar to the crime for which the defendant is on trial. See Commonwealth v. Millyan, 399 Mass. 171, 185, 503 N.E.2d 934 (1987). Where the record shows that the judge has failed to exercise discretion, there exists an error of law requiring reversal. Commonwealth v. Guilfoyle, 396 Mass. 1003, 1004, 485 N.E.2d 679 (1985). It is also error for the judge to admit the prior convictions because of their similarity to the crimes charged and the inference that they show a propensity to commit that type of crime. See Commonwealth v. Guilfoyle, supra; Commonwealth v. Roucoulet, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 603, 608, 496 N.E.2d 166 (1986).

The Commonwealth correctly asserts that here we must review the introduction of the evidence under the standard of "whether the alleged errors created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice." Commonwealth v. Gabbidon, 398 Mass. 1, 7, 494 N.E.2d 1317 (1986). A motion in limine is insufficient to preserve appellate rights where, as in the present case, there was no objection at trial to the introduction of evidence of the convictions. Id. Here, where the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, there was no miscarriage of justice in the introduction of evidence of the defendant's prior convictions. In his testimony, the defendant did not dispute that...