Com. v. Guilfoyle
| Decision Date | 05 December 1985 |
| Citation | 396 Mass. 1003,485 N.E.2d 679 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Michael J. GUILFOYLE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Jane Larmon White, Committee for Public Counsel Services, Boston, for defendant.
Mary Ellen O'Sullivan, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Com.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN and LYNCH, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendant was found guilty by a six-person jury in a District Court of larceny of more than $100 and of breaking and entering a building in the daytime with intent to commit a felony. After sentencing, he appealed and the Appeals Court in an unpublished order affirmed his convictions. 19 Mass.App.Ct. 1108 (1985). We took the case on an application for further appellate review. We reverse the convictions. The defendant raises several issues on appeal, but we treat only one because it is unlikely that the others will arise on retrial.
The trial judge permitted the Commonwealth to introduce in evidence the defendant's record of conviction for receiving stolen property. See G.L. c. 233, § 21 (1984 ed.). Without more, this ruling would not necessarily be error because we have said that a trial judge has discretion to admit or exclude records of conviction. We have said that he may exclude a record of conviction when it is offered to impeach a witness or defendant who testifies "where the likely prejudice to the defendant is most intense." Commonwealth v. Chase, 372 Mass. 736, 750, 363 N.E.2d 1105 (1977). Commonwealth v. Knight, 392 Mass. 192, 194, 465 N.E.2d 771 (1984). However, if a judge admits a record on the mistaken belief that he has no discretion to exclude it, he has committed an error of law in failing to recognize that he had discretion. See Commonwealth v. McFarland, 15 Mass.App. 948, 949, 445 N.E.2d 1085 (1983). In Commonwealth v. Maguire, 392 Mass. 466, 470, 467 N.E.2d 112 (1984), we ruled for the first time that the exercise of discretion in admitting a record of conviction was subject to appellate review. Maguire set forth the criterion by which we would review a judge's exercise of discretion in providing that the "question on appeal will normally be whether there was an abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of a prior conviction because the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed the probative value of the evidence of a prior conviction for the purposes of impeachment." Id.
In the instant case the judge told counsel: "I think it is germane ... that you have a receiving stolen property and this case, [the defendant] is alleged to be the thief and in the prior case, he is alleged to have been in possession of property knowing it to be stolen, so I think that if I were a fact finder, I think that there is a direct relationship between the receiving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Little
...is reversible error" (emphasis in original). Commonwealth v. Fano, supra at 302 n. 11, 508 N.E.2d 859, citing Commonwealth v. Guilfoyle, 396 Mass. 1003, 1004, 485 N.E.2d 679 (1985) (judgments reversed where judge considered "similarity of crimes to be the basis for admission of the records ......
-
Com. v. Fano
...fails to realize and exercise his discretion in deciding whether to admit evidence of prior convictions. Commonwealth v. Guilfoyle, 396 Mass. 1003, 1004, 485 N.E.2d 679 (1985). Moreover, admission of evidence of prior convictions solely because of the similarity of the conviction to the cri......
-
Com. v. Tracy
...crime, he probably committed the crime for which he is being tried, particularly if the crimes are similar." Commonwealth v. Guilfoyle, 396 Mass. 1003, 1004, 485 N.E.2d 679 (1985). In sum, he claims the trial was fundamentally The standard for our review is whether there is a substantial ri......
-
Com. v. Reid
...to a judge's misevaluation of the factors for and against the use of the conviction for impeachment purposes. Commonwealth v. Guilfoyle, 396 Mass. 1003, 485 N.E.2d 679 (1985). Since the Maguire case, it has been clear that hte discretion call which the judge is required to make is not in th......