Com. v. Leno

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: Before HENNESSEY; WILKINS
• Citation: 374 Mass. 716,374 N.E.2d 572
• Decision Date: 29 March 1978
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. James J. LENO (and a companion case). Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex

Page 572

374 N.E.2d 572 374 Mass. 716 COMMONWEALTH
v.
James J. LENO (and a companion case).
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex. Argued Feb. 13, 1978.
Decided March 29, 1978.

[374 Mass. 717] J. Russell Hodgdon, Boston, for defendant.

Dennis J. Baker, Legal Asst. to the Dist. Atty., Boston, for the Commonwealth.

Before [374 Mass. 716] HENNESSEY, C. J., and QUIRICO, KAPLAN, WILKINS and ABRAMS, JJ.

[374 Mass. 717] WILKINS, Justice.

The defendant was convicted of rape and assault with intent to rape. He challenges the admission against him, for impeachment purposes, of records of his prior convictions of kidnapping and rape,

Page 573

arguing that their admission denied him a fair trial. Records of prior convictions are admissible for impeachment purposes under G.L. c. 233, § 21. We recently have discussed and rejected a somewhat similar challenge to G.L. c. 233, § 21, involving an assertion of denial of due process of law. Commonwealth v. Chase, --- Mass. ---, --- - --- (1977) ^a, 363 N.E.2d 1105 (defendant, previously convicted of murder, declined to testify at his murder trial, asserting the unfair, inhibitory effect of G.L. c. 233, § 21). We have found a rational basis for the admission for impeachment purposes of a prior conviction. Commonwealth v. Sheeran, --- Mass. ---, --- - --- ^b, 345 N.E.2d 362. We see no occasion to change our view. We affirm the judgments.

Although the statute leaves no discretion in the judge on the admissibility of records of those prior convictions which are described in the statute (Commonwealth v. West, 357 Mass. 245, 248, 258 N.E.2d 22 (1970)), and, although we have not accepted constitutional arguments advanced against the statute in particular cases, we have noted that the judge has the right "to avoid any question of unfairness by excluding such evidence in a situation where the likely prejudice to the defendant is most intense." Commonwealth v. Chase, supra, --- Mass. at --- ^c, 363 N.E.2d at 1114. We have also urged that the Legislature consider "the undesirability of applying the statute in particular instances . . .." Id. at --- ^d, 363 N.E.2d at 1115. See Commonwealth v. Delorey, --- Mass. ---, --- ^e, 339 N.E.2d 746 (Hennessey, J., concurring). Commonwealth v. DiMarzo, 364 Mass. 669, 683, 308 N.E.2d 538 (1974) (Hennessey, J., concurring). However, in the ordinary case, where as here the prior convictions involve events unrelated to those on which the current prosecution is based, the...