Com. v. LaPierre
| Decision Date | 22 August 1980 |
| Citation | 408 N.E.2d 883,10 Mass.App.Ct. 871 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Roger LaPIERRE. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
H. Hoover Garabedian, Worcester, for defendant.
Lynn Morrill Turcotte, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before GOODMAN, DREBEN and NOLAN, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendant appeals from his conviction on an indictment charging aiding, counseling or procuring the burning of a building (G.L. c. 266, § 2) on the sole ground that the trial judge erred in excluding evidence as to the bad reputation for truth and veracity of a key prosecution witness. There was no error.
The key witness had been a short order cook at the defendant's restaurant. The excluded evidence was that of a waitress at the restaurant who testified at a voir dire hearing that among her fellow workers, namely two waitresses and a cook, the key witness's reputation was that "she wouldn't know the truth if it hit her in the face."
Although by reason of G.L. c. 233, § 21A, evidence of a person's reputation is not limited to his reputation in the community in which he resides, but can also be shown by his reputation in the community in which he works, the trial judge has discretion to exclude such evidence if he determines that it is based on the opinions of too limited a group. See Commonwealth v. Belton, 352 Mass. 263, 269, 225 N.E.2d 53, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 872, 88 S.Ct. 159, 19 L.Ed.2d 153 (1967).
This is so because "evidence of specific . . . opinions may not be used to prove reputation. . . ." Commonwealth v United Food Corp., 374 Mass. 765, 769, 374 N.E.2d 1331 (1978). The impeaching evidence must be of general reputation and not the private opinions of a few persons. F. W. Stock & Sons v. Dellapenna, 217 Mass. 503, 506, 105 N.E. 378 (1914). Commonwealth v. Belton, 352 Mass. at 269, 225 N.E.2d 53. See generally, Leach and Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence 121-122 (4th ed. 1967). Compare Fed.R.Evid. 608(a) and proposed Mass.R.Evid. 608(a) (July, 1980). It is only where the sources are sufficiently numerous and general that they are viewed as trustworthy. Commonwealth v. United Food Corp., 374 Mass. at 769, 374 N.E.2d 1331. See Commonwealth v. Edmonds, 365 Mass. 496, 503-504, 313 N.E.2d 429 (1974). See also McCormick, Evidence § 44, at 93-93 (2d ed. 1972); People v. Colantone, 243 N.Y. 134, 139, 152 N.E. 700 (1926); People v. Paisley, 214 Cal.App.2d 225, 233, 29 Cal.Rptr. 307 (1963).
"We hold that, in view of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Costa
...any "community," because it was based on the opinions of "too limited a group," i.e., three individuals. Commonwealth v. LaPierre, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 871, 871, 408 N.E.2d 883 (1980) (testimony about witness's reputation among three coworkers was insufficient). See Commonwealth v. Dockham, 40......
-
Com. v. Edgerly
...but not evidence in form of private opinions). Commonwealth v. La Pierre, --- Mass.App. ---, ---, Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1980) 1619, 1620, 408 N.E.2d 883 (proper to exclude testimony as to witness's bad reputation where judge determines such testimony was based on opinions of too limited a gr......
-
Com. v. Sheline
...reputation discussed exclusively in the family of witness's father-in-law, who was the defendant's employer); Commonwealth v. LaPierre, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 871, 408 N.E.2d 883 (1980) (testimony of waitress based on reputation among two other waitresses and a cook). See also P.J. Liacos, Massach......
-
Gardner v. Commonwealth
...which to form their opinion.” (emphasis in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Commonwealth v. La Pierre, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 871, 408 N.E.2d 883, 883–84 (1980) (explaining that “the trial judge has discretion to exclude [reputation] evidence if he determines that it is ......