Com. v. Ford
Decision Date | 14 April 1986 |
Citation | 490 N.E.2d 1166,397 Mass. 298 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. James A. FORD. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Brownlow M. Speer, Committee for Public Counsel Services, Boston, for defendant.
John P. Corbett, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Commonwealth.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and LIACOS, ABRAMS, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.
Following his convictions on complaints charging breaking and entering in the night time with intent to commit a felony, larceny in a building, and malicious destruction of property over the value of $100, see G.L. c. 266, §§ 16, 20, 127 (1984 ed.), the defendant appealed. 1 The Appeals Court affirmed the judgments. See Commonwealth v. Ford, 20 Mass.App.Ct. 575, 481 N.E.2d 534 (1985). We granted further appellate review to consider the defendant's allegations that the use of certified copies of records of his convictions containing extraneous matter deprived him of a fair trial, and that the judge's imposition of consecutive sentences "violated the defendant's right to be secure from double jeopardy." We conclude that the use of the certified conviction records with extraneous material requires a new trial.
The Appeals Court summarized the facts as follows:
...
(Footnote omitted.) Id. at 576-577, 481 N.E.2d 534.
The certified records of the defendant's prior convictions included docket entries which showed defaults, warrants issued, arrests on warrant, and violations of probation. The admission of unexpurgated records was error. We agree with the Appeals Court that where certified records of prior conviction are used to impeach, G.L. c. 233, § 21 (1984 ed.), Commonwealth v. Ford, supra at 578-579, 481 N.E.2d 534. If, as the judge believed, masking the extraneous material risked inducing the jury to speculate about the missing portions of the records, to the defendant's prejudice, he should have denied the Commonwealth's request to mark the records as exhibits. See Commonwealth v. St. Pierre, 377 Mass. 650, 664, 387 N.E.2d 1135 (1979). The judge should have limited the use of the records to testimony "establishing the identity of the witness with the person named in the record of conviction." Commonwealth v. Callahan, 358 Mass. 808, 808, 265 N.E.2d 382 (1970).
Further, the judge twice allowed the prosecutor to impeach the defendant with a bench trial conviction and then with a jury-of-six conviction for the same offense. This may have given the jurors the misimpression that the defendant had been convicted of additional offenses, clearly to the defendant's detriment, and should not have been allowed. 2 See Commonwealth v. Buckley, 17 Mass.App.Ct. 373, 380-381, 458 N.E.2d 781 (1984).
We do not, however, agree with the Appeals Court's conclusion that the error was nonprejudicial. The only evidence that tied the defendant to the break-in was the defendant's confession to the police officers. The confession as reported by the officers did...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Johnson
...do not prohibit both a larceny and breaking and entering conviction arising out of a single criminal episode. Commonwealth v. Ford, 397 Mass. 298, 490 N.E.2d 1166 (1986); State v. Gardner, 315 N.C. 444, 340 S.E.2d 701 For the foregoing reasons, this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of ......
-
Com. v. Gagliardi
...alone. Id. at 184, 503 N.E.2d 934. The reading of the charge, however, does not make the case analogous to Commonwealth v. Ford, 397 Mass. 298, 300, 490 N.E.2d 1166 (1986), where a conviction was reversed because the jury were apprised of the defendant's "defaults, warrants issued, arrests ......
-
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez
...and disbelieved the defendant. Commonwealth v. Beattie, 409 Mass. 458, 460, 567 N.E.2d 206 (1991). See Commonwealth v. Ford, 397 Mass. 298, 301–302, 490 N.E.2d 1166 (1986) ("Credibility is for the jury, not for appellate courts"). Depending on who the jury believed and to what extent, the j......
-
State v. Jenkins
...... may be used to impeach a witness's character for truthfulness, probation violations may not be so used."); Commonwealth v. Ford, 397 Mass. 298, 490 N.E.2d 1166, 1168 (1986) (holding that it was error to admit extraneous material, which included violations of probation, with records of a......