Com. v. Mendrala

• Decision Date: 19 July 1985
• Citation: 20 Mass.App.Ct. 398,480 N.E.2d 1039
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Frank MENDRALA, (and three companion cases 1 ).
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 1039

480 N.E.2d 1039

20 Mass.App.Ct. 398

COMMONWEALTH v. Frank MENDRALA, (and three companion cases ¹).

Appeals Court of Massachusetts Hampshire.

Argued March 14, 1985.

Decided July 19, 1985.

Frederick U. Fierst, Northampton (Wendy Sibbison, Northampton, with him), for Frank Mendrala.

Maureen B. Brodoff, Committee for Public Counsel Services, Boston, for John Bailey.

Charles K. Stephenson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

Before BROWN, KAPLAN and DREBEN, JJ.

DREBEN, Justice.

Convicted of indecent assault and battery and attempted rape, the defendants appeal claiming error in evidentiary rulings by the trial judge and also urging that they are entitled to a new trial by reason of prosecutorial misconduct. We reverse because, contrary to the principles of Commonwealth v. Gardner, 350 Mass. 664, 665-667, 216 N.E.2d 558 (1966), and Commonwealth v. Montmeny, 360 Mass. 526, 528, 276 N.E.2d 688 (1971), the Commonwealth was permitted to elicit, over objection, a direct opinion from a physician that the complainant was the victim of a sexual assault.

1. Bailey's motion for a required finding of not guilty--admission of spontaneous exclamation. Bailey claims that he was entitled to a required finding of not guilty because the only evidence connecting him to the crimes was inadmissible. Based on the complainant's testimony, the jury could have found the following facts. The complainant, a twenty-one year old woman, was picked up by three men in a car. She was "loaded," by which she meant "drunk." In the vehicle, she joined the men in drinking from a bottle of Kahlua and smoking a marihuana cigarette. The driver of the car refused to take the route she requested, and when she asked the men to turn the car around, they started laughing. After repeated requests she was permitted to alight to relieve herself in an isolated area. When she ran to some bushes, two of the men followed her, prevented her from pulling her pants up, commented on her "nice ass", and took turns "poking" and "touching" her vagina with their fingers. Thereafter, the two men, whom she identified as the driver and the front seat passenger, dragged her back toward the car at which time the headlights of another car became visible.

The second car was a police car and one of the officers testified that he noticed a young woman with her pants down coming out of the darkness near the rear of the first car. She tried to run away but was placed in the back of the police car where there was a police dog. The officer also noticed a person wearing a white cap (who later turned out to be Mendrala) enter the car through the driver's side door. Both officers testified that there was "a lot of commotion" or "a lot of movement" in the first car. The car, which appeared to have two people in the front seat, backed away, turned around, and was followed by the police car at a speed of fifty to sixty miles an hour. After travelling two tenths of a mile, the first car hit a pothole and stopped.

At the direction of the police officers, the two occupants of the car emerged, they were handcuffed, and they were forced to lie on the ground in the beam of the cruiser's headlights. According to the officers, the complainant, hysterical, "began to approach the two subjects on the ground screaming that they were the ones who had hurt her." Both officers identified the driver as Mendrala and the passenger as Bailey.

Bailey claims that although at the time the Commonwealth rested its case, see Commonwealth v. Kelley, 370 Mass. 147, 150, 346 N.E.2d 368 (1976), ² there was evidence that he was one of the three men in the car with the complainant, there was no evidence, other than the hearsay testimony of the officers, that he was one of the two men who allegedly assaulted her. He recognizes that the complainant testified that one of her assailants had been the front seat passenger while all four persons had been in the car, but he points out that she testified that she did not see the third man after she alighted from the car. At trial she identified Mendrala as the driver, but did not identify Bailey. The critical evidence, therefore, is the testimony of the police officers recounting the complainant's scream identifying the two men on the ground as her assailants.

Bailey claims that the principles of Commonwealth v. Daye, 393 Mass. 55, 469 N.E.2d 483 (1984), preclude admission of this hearsay identification. The Daye decision prevents substantive use of an extrajudicial identification unless the identifying witness acknowledges that the identification was, in fact, made. Otherwise, the identification is not sufficiently reliable. Its "probative worth is outweighed by 'the hazard of error or falsity in the reporting' ". Daye at 61, 469 N.E.2d 483, quoting from McCormick, The Turncoat Witness: Previous Statements as Substantive Evidence, 25 Tex.L.Rev. 573, 588 (1947). The Daye court allied itself with those authorities which construe Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(C) as inapplicable to such testimony. Id. at 60-61 notes 8 and 9, 469 N.E.2d 483.

Nothing in Daye suggests that an identification whose reliability is established by another exception to the hearsay proscription is to be excluded. The judge admitted the evidence as a spontaneous exclamation and "could well have concluded within his 'broad discretion' " that the complainant's statements fell within this recognized exception. Commonwealth v. Sellon, 380 Mass. 220, 229, 402 N.E.2d 1329 (1980). Commonwealth v. Hampton, 351 Mass. 447, 449, 221 N.E.2d 766 (1966). Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 364 Mass. 211, 221-224, 303 N.E.2d 338 (1973). Commonwealth v. Puleio, 394 Mass. 101, 104, 474 N.E.2d 1078 (1985). Commonwealth v. Burden, 15 Mass.App. 666, 676-677, 448 N.E.2d 387 (1983). It appears that the complainant's identification was "instinctual" and not "contrived and calculated." Commonwealth v. White, 370 Mass. 703, 713, 352 N.E.2d 904 (1976). ³

In sum, although the identification could not qualify under the exception to the hearsay rule set forth in Daye, it was admissible in the judge's discretion as a spontaneous utterance. Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence 350-351 (5th ed. 1981). ⁴ Since there was sufficient evidence of identification, the denial of Bailey's motion for a required finding of not guilty was proper.

2. Dr. Conway's opinion. Dr. Conway was the emergency room physician at the hospital where the complainant was taken after the police chase. He testified that, when she came in, her clothes were in disarray and her face was dirty and appeared tear-stained. She had bruises on her wrists, knees and buttocks, and there was increased redness in her vaginal area. He took her history and described her as emotionally upset. After an extensive voir dire, he was asked, in each case over the defendants' objection:

Q. "Doctor, based on these findings and the history that you derived from [the complainant] can you form an opinion as to a medical certainty as to the cause of the state she was in when you examined her there?"

A. "Yes."

Q. "What is that opinion?"

A. "In my opinion based on my experience, based on the history and the physical exam, my opinion is that the patient was a victim of a sexual assault."

As is often the case where there are charges of rape or sexual assault, the question of guilt or innocence rests in large part "upon whether the jury believed the victim's version of what happened or the defendant[s'- ]." ⁵ Commonwealth v. Gardner, 350 Mass. 664, 667, 216 N.E.2d 558 (1966). In these circumstances, the witness's opinion "presented as the unbiased testimony of an expert, could have substantially influenced the jury's decision as to whom to believe." Id. at 667, 216 N.E.2d 558. See McCormick, Evidence § 12, at 30-31 (3d ed. 1984). The Gardner court held that the "possible prejudice" to the defendant by the admission of a gynecologist's opinion that "there was forcible entry" entitled the defendant to a new trial on the charge of rape. Id. at 666, 667, 216 N.E.2d 558.

"Under modern standards, expert testimony on matters within the witness's field of expertise is admissible ... even if the expert's opinion touches on the ultimate issues that the jury must decide." Simon v. Solomon, 385 Mass. 91, 105, 431 N.E.2d 556 (1982). Commonwealth v. Montmeny, 360 Mass. at 527-529, 276 N.E.2d 688. Commonwealth v. LaCorte, 373 Mass. 700, 705, 369 N.E.2d 1006 (1977). See Fed.R.Evid. 704(a) and Proposed Mass.R.Evid. 704 (July, 1980). To be admissible, however, the testimony must be of assistance to the jury in reaching a decision. As stated in Simon v. Solomon, supra, 385 Mass. at 105, 431 N.E.2d 556, an "expert may not ... offer his opinion on issues that the jury are equally competent to assess, such as credibility of witnesses. [Citations to Gardner, supra 350 Mass. at 665-667, 216 N.E.2d 558 and Montmeny, supra 360 Mass. at 528-529, 276 N.E.2d 688.] On such questions, the influence of an expert's opinion may threaten the independence of the jury's decision. [Citation to Gardner, supra 350 Mass. at 667, 216 N.E.2d 558]." See generally, Commonwealth v. Francis, 390 Mass. 89, 98-102, 453 N.E.2d 1204 (1983). See also 7 Wigmore, Evidence § 1925 (Chadbourn rev. 1978) ("Does the jury need any inference from the witness, either because of his skill or because his observed data cannot be adequately reproduced by him?" [emphasis original] ). ⁶

Unless there are special factual circumstances suggesting that a jury may be helped by an expert in rape or sexual assault cases, ⁷ a witness, no matter how well qualified, may not be asked directly whether a rape or a sexual assault has occurred. "Such a direct opinion ... [is] beyond the witness's appropriate province as an expert witness." Commonwealth v. Montmeny, 360 Mass. at 528, 276 N.E.2d 688. In Gardner, 350 Mass. at 667, 216 N.E.2d 558, the court was "not persuaded that a gynecologist, or other expert, possesses skills or special experience which...