Com. v. Draheim

• Citation: 447 Mass. 113,849 N.E.2d 823
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Nina M. DRAHEIM.
• Decision Date: 27 June 2006
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 823

849 N.E.2d 823

447 Mass. 113

COMMONWEALTH v. Nina M. DRAHEIM.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued April 6, 2006.

Decided June 27, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gail M. McKenna, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Joseph F. Krowski, Jr., Brockton (Jason C. Howard with him) for the defendant.

Bethany C. Brown, for Kevin Draheim, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, SOSMAN, & CORDY, JJ.

COWIN, J.

We are concerned here with indictments against the defendant, a married woman, for rape of two teenaged boys.¹ The Commonwealth alleges that the defendant's sexual intercourse resulted in the birth of a child by each complainant. The Commonwealth filed motions in each case to compel saliva samples (e.g., buccal swabs²) from the defendant, the child, and the complainant for the purpose of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing to establish whether the complainant in each case is the father of the child involved. A judge in the Superior Court denied the motions and the Commonwealth filed a petition with the county court for relief pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3. A single justice reserved and reported the case. We vacate the decisions of the judge and direct the entry of an order in the county court that the matter be remanded for further hearing consistent with this opinion.

1. Background. We recite the background of this case as drawn from the pleadings below; the Commonwealth's petition pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3; testimony and exhibits presented to the grand jury; and an order of the Probate and Family Court.³ The charges of rape of a child facing the defendant, Nina M. Draheim, stem from the alleged rapes of two boys.⁴ Draheim was married at the time of the charged crimes, and she had a child approximately nine months after each of the incidents. As stated, the Commonwealth seeks DNA samples from Draheim, her two children, and the two complainants in order to conduct paternity testing that could provide evidence that the rapes occurred.

Draheim is first alleged to have raped JG,⁵ a fourteen year old boy, on multiple occasions "on or between October 29, 2000 and November 14, 2000." In regard to this indictment, the Commonwealth presented the following testimony to a grand jury. A former friend of Draheim testified that Draheim had admitted "having sex" with JG, and one of JG's friends and a police detective testified that JG said he had sexual relations with Draheim. Also submitted to the grand jury was a report of a police interview with JG in which he said that he "had sex" with Draheim.⁶

The first indictment charging rape of a child was returned on December 22, 2000. On November 29, 2001, over the Commonwealth's objection, the defendant received pretrial probation for two years.⁷, ⁸

Draheim was subsequently indicted for engaging in sexual acts with CG, a fifteen year old boy, between June 1, 2003, and September 1, 2003. These indictments consisted of three indictments charging rape of a child and two indictments charging indecent assault and battery on a person fourteen years or older. At the time, she was still on pretrial probation in connection with the previous child rape indictment. As a result of the new offenses, her pretrial probation was revoked and the earlier case was restored to the active trial list.⁹

The evidence that the Commonwealth presented to support the second set of indictments consists of the complainant's statements that "he had had sex" with the defendant. These statements were in the form of a police report, a handwritten statement from the complainant, and a videotape of a police interview. A friend of Draheim testified that Draheim would not tell her whether she had intercourse with CG, but the friend stated that she had witnessed CG and Draheim kissing.

Draheim's family situation is as follows. She delivered her first daughter, Abby,¹⁰ on July 20, 2001, approximately thirty-five to thirty-eight weeks after the period of the alleged rapes of the first complainant. She delivered her second daughter, Kate, on or about June 9, 2004,¹¹ approximately forty to fifty-three weeks after the period of the alleged rapes of the second complainant.

The defendant was married to Kevin Draheim at the time of all the alleged rapes. He is named as the father on the birth certificate of the first child, Abby and has always acted as such. Kevin Draheim filed for divorce on August 29, 2003, and was awarded sole legal and physical custody of Abby on December 8, 2003. At one point during the custody dispute concerning Abby, the defendant testified that Kevin Draheim was not Abby's biological father and moved to require genetic testing to establish Abby's paternity. A judge in the Probate and Family Court denied the motion.

The situation as to the defendant's second daughter, Kate, is different. The defendant and Kevin Draheim agree that Kate, who was conceived after the deterioration of their marriage, is not Kevin Draheim's biological child. The record is silent as to who currently has legal and physical custody of Kate.

As stated, the Commonwealth moved for an order requiring the defendant, both the defendant's minor children, and the two complainants to provide buccal swabs, or saliva samples, for collection of DNA samples. The Commonwealth's motions stated that each sample "will probably produce evidence relevant" to the defendant's guilt, namely whether either complainant was the biological father of either of the defendant's children. The motions also provided that taking a buccal swab would be a "relatively minor intrusion" on those subject to the order. In support of its motions to compel buccal swabs, the Commonwealth submitted affidavits and grand jury transcripts.

An affidavit of a supervisor at the State police crime laboratory included with each of the Commonwealth's motions to compel explained that DNA "standards" of the defendant, the complainant, and the child in each case will allow analysis and comparison that will "provide evidence of paternity . . . and permit expert opinion. . . as to the paternity of the child."

A hearing on the Commonwealth's motions to compel buccal swabs was held. In addition to attorneys for the defendant and the Commonwealth, an attorney representing Kevin Draheim (the legal and physical custodian of Abby) was present. The judge stated that she had read one of the Commonwealth's motions and would not grant it because of the potential consequences for Abby and Kevin Draheim, and that the Commonwealth would have to "prove [the charges] as if there was no child." The judge also denied the motion as to the second complainant without further explanation. These proceedings followed.

2. Discussion. The Commonwealth moved to compel the defendant, the complainants, and the children to submit saliva samples through buccal swabs. A government-compelled buccal swab implicates the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures. See Commonwealth v. Maxwell, 441 Mass. 773, 777, 808 N.E.2d 806 (2004). Thus, before forcibly taking a saliva sample, the Commonwealth must satisfy a burden that takes into consideration those protections. We address the Commonwealth's burdens regarding the defendant and the third parties (the complainants and the children) in turn.

a. The defendant. The Commonwealth's burden with regard to the defendant is clear. See Commonwealth v. Maxwell, supra at 778-779, 808 N.E.2d 806. First, it must establish that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime. See id. at 777, 808 N.E.2d 806. This burden is obviously satisfied by the indictment. See id. at 778, 808 N.E.2d 806. The Commonwealth must also show that the sample sought "will probably provide evidence relevant to the question of the defendant's guilt." Id. at 778, 808 N.E.2d 806, quoting Commonwealth v. Trigones, 397 Mass. 633, 640, 492 N.E.2d 1146 (1986). The Commonwealth must make that showing at an adversary, though not necessarily evidentiary, hearing; the judge may act on an indictment, affidavit, and uncontroverted statements of a prosecutor made and recorded in open court. See Commonwealth v. Maxwell, supra at 778-779 & n. 11, 808 N.E.2d 806; Commonwealth v. Trigones, supra at 641, 492 N.E.2d 1146. Regardless whether the issues are contested, she must make findings (express or at least implied) indicating that she has resolved any relevant evidentiary disputes and decided whether the Commonwealth has made a sufficient showing to obtain the sample. Here, although there was an adversary hearing, it was a truncated one; the judge made no express findings; and none can be implied from her denial of the motions. Accordingly, we must remand the matter for further hearing consistent with the principles discussed above and with those enumerated below.

b. Third parties. The Commonwealth's burden with regard to the complainants and the children presents a novel question.¹² Never before have we determined in a criminal case whether or in what circumstances the Commonwealth can obtain a sample of physical evidence from the body of a third party. To be sure, we have concluded that a defendant can compel a third party to submit to a buccal swab. See Jansen, petitioner, 444 Mass. 112, 826 N.E.2d 186 (2005). Where we have held that the Commonwealth can forcibly take a physical sample from a person not charged with a crime, the person was at least a suspect under investigation. See Matter of Lavigne, 418 Mass. 831, 833, 641 N.E.2d 1328 (1994) (uncharged person from whom Commonwealth sought blood sample was "prime suspect" in murder). See also Commonwealth v. Williams, 439 Mass. 678, 680-681, 790 N.E.2d 662 (2003) (person from whom grand jury sought blood, hair, and saliva samples was suspect in murder); Matter of a Grand Jury Investigation, 427 Mass. 221, 222, 692 N.E.2d 56, cert. denied...