Com. v. Cancel

• Decision Date: 17 April 1985
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Raphael CANCEL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 610

476 N.E.2d 610

394 Mass. 567

COMMONWEALTH v. Raphael CANCEL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Hampden.

Argued Feb. 4, 1985.

Decided April 17, 1985.

Jane Larmon White, Boston, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for defendant.

William T. Walsh, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Com.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN and LYNCH, JJ.

LYNCH, Justice.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of burning a dwelling house, G.L. c. 266, § 1. The Appeals Court summarily reversed the judgment of conviction based on the improper admission in evidence of a witness's hearsay statement. Commonwealth v. Cancel, 18 Mass.App. 1114, 469 N.E.2d 831 (1984). We allowed the Commonwealth's application for further appellate review.

Citing three errors of law, the defendant argues that his conviction must be reversed. He contends that the first error was made when a witness was allowed to testify, over objection, that "a lot of people told me that you're responsible for [the fire]." He argues that it was improper to allow, over objection, impeachment of a defense witness by reference to his membership in a street gang. Finally, the defendant argues that the prosecutor in his closing argument improperly made reference to the defendant's failure to testify or to call alibi witnesses. The Commonwealth contends that, in each of these cases, the defendant failed to preserve his rights by proper objection under Mass.R.Crim.P. 22, 378 Mass. 892 (1979). ¹ We agree that, in each specific instance, the defendant either failed to preserve his rights by a proper objection or the error was not sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal. Nevertheless, we decide that in combination these circumstances present a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The defendant's conviction is therefore reversed.

On the evening of May 21, 1982, a fire broke out in a closet of the defendant's apartment. Two witnesses testified that they saw the defendant set the fire, and that he did so because he was upset with the woman with whom he shared the apartment. Both witnesses admitted to bias against the defendant, and their description of events differed on a variety of details. The owner of the building testified that, while he was on a back porch of the building shortly after the fire, he observed the defendant for a "couple of seconds" standing with a group of people on a street corner approximately 150 feet from the building. The defendant later asserted to the owner that he was out of town on the day of the fire. A member of the Springfield fire department's arson squad testified that he believed the fire had been set.

1. Hearsay. The owner testified that, while assessing damage to the apartment a day or two after the fire, he saw the defendant and a conversation ensued. According to the owner's testimony, the defendant volunteered that he had nothing to do with the fire, to which the owner responded that "a lot of people told me that you're responsible for it." When the latter statement was made at trial, the defendant objected, without stating any grounds. Presuming the objection to be based on hearsay, the judge ruled that the statement was admissible to show what the conversation was, not for its truth. As such, it would not be considered hearsay. See P.J. Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence 263 (5th ed. 1981). The defendant did not object to this ruling, nor did he move at any time to strike the testimony.

The defendant now urges that the statement was hearsay and not admissible for any purpose, because it was relevant only for its truth and no exception to the hearsay rule applies. The Commonwealth contends that the statement was useful in placing other, unobjectionable testimony into context. Further, the Commonwealth argues that under rule 22 the defendant failed to preserve his right to dispute that ruling.

We do not agree that the hearsay statement was necessary to place other "consciousness of guilt" evidence into context. It is clear from the transcript that "the two statements are entirely separable, the one being admissible and the other inadmissible hearsay prejudicial to the defendant." ² Commonwealth v. Pleasant, 366 Mass. 100, 103, 315 N.E.2d 874 (1974). Indeed, the Commonwealth concedes that the hearsay statement could have been left out without materially affecting the later evidence. Moreover, a review of all the evidence leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that the statement was relevant only for its truth. Cf. Commonwealth v. Errington, 390 Mass. 875, 881, 460 N.E.2d 598 (1984). As such, it was hearsay to which no exception applied, and therefore inadmissible for any reason. Commonwealth v. Pleasant, supra, 366 Mass. at 102-103, 315 N.E.2d 874. A timely objection, even a general one, would have been sufficient to exclude the evidence under these circumstances. See, e.g., 1 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 18, at 824 (Tillers rev. ed. 1983).

It is equally clear, however, that the defendant's general objection was insufficient under rule 22. When the objection was interposed, it was not yet clear whether the statement would be relevant other than for its truth. When "an accused responds to incriminating accusations made of him in an equivocal, evasive or irresponsive way inconsistent with his innocence, both the accusations and his answer are admissible." Commonwealth v. Machado, 339 Mass. 713, 715-716, 162 N.E.2d 71 (1959), and cases cited. See Commonwealth v. Curry, 341 Mass. 50, 54, 166 N.E.2d 714 (1960); Commonwealth v. Madeiros, 255 Mass. 304, 313, 151 N.E. 297 (1926). See also K.B. Hughes, Evidence § 528, at 737-738 (1961). On the other hand, if the accusation is met with an unequivocal denial by the defendant, the hearsay statement is not an admission, and is inadmissible unless some other exception applies. Commonwealth v. Pleasant, supra, 366 Mass. at 102, 315 N.E.2d 874; Commonwealth v. Twombly, 319 Mass. 464, 465, 66 N.E.2d 362 (1946).

At the time of the objection, the witness had not yet testified as to the defendant's response to the accusatory statement. Thus, the judge could not have then known whether the defendant's alleged response would be an unequivocal denial, and therefore inadmissible, or an evasive answer or incriminating silence, and therefore admissible. Once it became clear that the defendant had unequivocally denied the statement, it was incumbent on the defendant to renew his objection or move to strike the earlier testimony.

Moreover, it is not apparent that the defendant was dissatisfied with the judge's ruling. Unlike the situation in Commonwealth v. Jewett, 392 Mass. 558, 562, 467 N.E.2d 155 (1984), the judge's ruling was not unequivocally adverse. Instead, the defendant received a limiting instruction and took no further action.

In these circumstances, the initial, general objection was simply insufficient. Cf. Commonwealth v. Houghtlin, 16 Mass.App. 691, 694-695, 454 N.E.2d 1289 (1983). ³ The purposes underlying our conclusion were well stated by Chief Justice Shaw: "[I]f the [objection] is intended to be relied on, and is seasonably taken, the omission may be supplied, or the error corrected, and the rights of all parties saved.... [I]t is not consistent with the purposes of justice, for a party knowing of a secret defect, to proceed and take his chance for a favorable verdict, with the power and intent to annul it, as erroneous and void, if it should be against him." Cady v. Norton, 14 Pick. 236, 237 (1833).

2. Impeachment of defense witness. The defendant called one witness at trial, who testified that an unknown woman approached him in the courthouse, offered to "stop the case" against the defendant for $300, and then walked away laughing. The Commonwealth chose not to move to strike the witness's testimony, ⁴ but to impeach it instead. On cross-examination, the Commonwealth impeached the witness by introducing in evidence several prior convictions. The Commonwealth then sought to elicit that the defendant was a member of a Springfield street gang. ⁵

The rule is "settled in this Commonwealth that in the introduction of evidence affecting generally the credibility of a witness, the inquiry is limited to his reputation for truth and veracity." Eastman v. Boston Elevated Ry., 200 Mass. 412, 413, 86 N.E. 793 (1909). F.W. Stock & Sons v. Dellapenna, 217 Mass. 503, 506, 105 N.E. 378 (1914). P.J. Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence 146-147 (5th ed. 1981). Evidence irrelevant to the issue at trial or to the witness's reputation for truth and veracity is inadmissible to impeach a witness. Commonwealth v. Binkiewicz, 342 Mass. 740, 755, 175 N.E.2d 473 (1961). See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Joyce, 382 Mass. 222, 227, 415 N.E.2d 181 (1981) (evidence of engaging in sex for hire irrelevant to issue of credibility). The witness's past membership in a street gang was clearly a collateral issue irrelevant to his veracity, and thus should not have been admitted. It could only tend to appeal to the jury's prejudice against street gangs. See Commonwealth v. Shelley, 374 Mass. 466, 470, 373 N.E.2d 951 (1978); Commonwealth v. Graziano, 368 Mass. 325, 332, 331 N.E.2d 808 (1975). The Commonwealth argues, however, that the defendant's general objection was insufficient under rule 22 to preserve the issue for review, and that, even if an error was made, it was harmless.

Unlike the situation involving the hearsay statement discussed earlier, the defendant's general objection to this line of questioning was interposed at the proper time, and the judge unequivocally overruled it. Since we conclude that "the ground for exclusion should have been obvious to the judge and opposing counsel without stating it, ... want of specification of the ground is immaterial for purposes of complaining on appeal of the judge's action in overruling the general objection." McCormick, Evidence § 52, at 115 (2d ed. 1972).

Therefore, we decide that the judge erred in admitting this impeachment evidence...