Com. v. Chotain
Decision Date | 05 September 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 90-P-1177,90-P-1177 |
Citation | 577 N.E.2d 629,31 Mass.App.Ct. 336 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Vance CHOTAIN. |
Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Carol A. Donovan, Committee for Public Counsel Services, Randolph, for defendant.
Elizabeth Dunphy Farris, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Com.
Before BROWN, SMITH and GREENBERG, JJ.
The defendant was convicted on an indictment charging breaking and entering a dwelling house in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony (G.L. c. 266, § 15). 1 His appeal centers on two alleged errors of the trial judge: (1) instructions which the defendant claims invaded the province of the jury's fact-finding function thereby depriving him of a fair opportunity to be convicted only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the denial of his motion to suppress testimony of the sole identification witness. Review of the record shows that the disputed portions of the judge's charge were erroneous and require reversal.
We recount the criminal episode from which the indictments arose. Richard Blais, the victim, lived in a single family dwelling in Holyoke with his wife and children. At 3:30 A.M. on November 10, 1988, he was awakened by a commotion on his enclosed front porch, just outside his bedroom window. Blais peered through the window and, aided by the adjacent street lights, saw two intruders, one standing in the corner of the porch and the other, wearing a beige, waist-length jacket, standing on the porch with his back to the bedroom window. Blais quickly dressed and armed himself with a self-fashioned weapon, a wooden table leg which he kept beneath his bed. Leaving his home through a rear door, Blais circled to the front, but the two men were nowhere in sight. His porch door was ajar.
Blais walked down the street and noticed a neighbor's porch light go on and off. In investigating the situation, Blais approached the neighbor's house and was confronted by the man in the light jacket who had been on his porch moments before. A short fracas ensued. Using the table leg as a club, Blais managed to subdue his adversary with a blow to the left temple. The intruder broke loose and fled with Blais behind him. After about a hundred yards, Blais abandoned the chase and then circled the general vicinity in his car. He stopped a Holyoke police officer to report the incident. He told the officer that the intruder was a slender, possibly Hispanic man in his twenties, wearing a beige jacket and a dark hat. Blais brought the police back to his neighborhood, where two police officers searched the area surrounding the two houses with flashlights. After locating a screwdriver lying on the ground near the neighbor's porch, the officers resumed their patrol, and Blais returned home.
Ten minutes later, Blais received a telephone call from the police informing him that a man with a head injury was being treated at Holyoke Hospital. The officer, believing the injured man to be the intruder at Blais's house, asked Blais to come to the hospital to identify him. When Blais arrived at the hospital, two officers walked a man through a room for Blais to view. Blais noted that the man had a large bald spot and stitches on his head and was wearing the same light beige jacket as the man with whom he had struggled. Blais told the police captain in charge: "Yea, that's the guy right there."
In early December, 1988, Blais was standing in a corridor in the Holyoke District Court where the defendant's probable cause hearing was to be held. He recognized the defendant (now clean shaven--Blais thought he had a beard before) standing among a few other people before the officers pointed the defendant out to him.
Although he testified to his out-of-court identifications, Blais was unable to make an in-court identification.
1. The judge's charge. During the course of his instructions, the judge, in laying out the elements of the crimes for which the defendant was indicted, stated to the jury on three separate occasions that the Commonwealth's evidence on the burglary indictment had carried the day. First, after properly charging that it was the jury's exclusive province to determine the facts, the judge added:
Later, the judge again played on this theme when, in instructing on the elements of burglary, he gave his own rendition of the evidence relevant to the charge:
"Now, the testimony, as I recall by Mr. Blais, was there was someone on his porch, and that he usually kept the door locked to the porch ..., and here was someone on the porch, and, of course, that's part of the dwelling, so I think--of course, it's up to you, and it's your memory of the testimony that controls--but I don't think you need delay too long on the elements of the crime, breaking and entering in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony, and that means that the breaking and entering must take place in the nighttime."
Any doubt remaining as to the judge's subjective evaluation of the breaking and entering indictment was dispelled when, following his charge on the elements of burglary, the judge remarked:
The defendant argues on appeal that the judge impermissibly injected his personal opinion as to the strength of the Commonwealth's evidence and thereby diluted the prosecution's burden of proving each essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree.
A judge may both instruct a jury as to what verdict is appropriate in the event that certain facts are found, see Commonwealth v. Boyd, 367 Mass. 169, 186, 326 N.E.2d 320 (1975), and assort the various issues given to him for decision. Commonwealth v. Bettencourt, 361 Mass. 515, 520-521, 281 N.E.2d 220 (1972), and cases cited. He may not, however, direct a verdict of guilty unless there has been an agreement as to all facts material to the proof of the crime charged. Common wealth v. Moniz, 336 Mass. 178, 180, 143 N.E.2d 196 (1957). Commonwealth v. Stracuzzi, 30 Mass.App.Ct. 161, 162-163, 566 N.E.2d 1151 (1991). While in this case the judge's instructions fell short of actually directing a guilty verdict, they nonetheless may have had that effect by force of the judge's having made known to the jury his own conclusions. See Commonwealth v. Wanderlick, 12 Mass.App.Ct. 970, 972, 428 N.E.2d 328 (1981) (). From the judge's repeated suggestions to the jury that key elements of the burglary had been proved and that identification was the only material issue, the jurors might have understood that the defendant had yielded on the breaking and entering elements of the crime. As such, his comments were erroneous. See Commonwealth v. Hebert, 379 Mass. 752, 755, 400 N.E.2d 851 (1980); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Arias
...“sufficient evidence that obligated the judge to instruct the jury correctly on provocation”). See generally Commonwealth v. Chotain, 31 Mass.App.Ct. 336, 341, 577 N.E.2d 629 (1991).10 Once the identification defense was rejected, the “ degree of criminal liability” was the primary issue fo......
-
Com. v. Leonardi
...where witness identified defendant who was voluntarily present one and one-half hours after shooting); Commonwealth v. Chotain, 31 Mass.App.Ct. 336, 341, 577 N.E.2d 629 (1991) (officers' statements prior to hospital showup that victim would see a man with a gash close to where victim descri......
-
Robertson v. Hanks
...No. 22A01-9010CR-398, 577 N.E.2d 625 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (Robertson I), and transfer was denied by the Indiana Supreme Court, 31 Mass.App.Ct. 336, 577 N.E.2d 629 (1991). A post-conviction petition was denied, and that denial was affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, Robertson v. State, 65......
-
Com. v. Cohen
...woman, the Commonwealth would have established an intentional assault and battery under the statute. See Commonwealth v. Chotain, 31 Mass.App.Ct. 336, 339, 577 N.E.2d 629 (1991) (judge may properly instruct jury as to what verdict is appropriate in the event certain facts are Neither did th......