Com. v. Mitchell
Decision Date | 19 August 1981 |
Citation | 424 N.E.2d 1149,12 Mass.App.Ct. 354 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Sammie L. MITCHELL. |
Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Brownlow M. Speer, Boston, for defendant.
Rosemary Ford, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before DREBEN, ROSE and KASS, JJ.
Three errors, the defendant asserts, attended his convictions of armed robbery in a dwelling house and masked armed robbery: (1) improper closing argument by the prosecutor; (2) an error in the jury instructions; and (3) improper limitation on the defense's cross-examination of the chief prosecution witness.
1. Improper closing argument. In his closing argument, the prosecutor asked the jury to infer guilt from the defendant's failure to go to the police to protest his innocence. Defense counsel neither objected to the prosecutor's argument nor requested the trial judge to give curative instructions to the jury. Compare Commonwealth v. Killelea, 370 Mass. 638, 645, 351 N.E.2d 509 (1976); Commonwealth v. Gouveia, 371 Mass. 566, 571-572, 358 N.E.2d 1001 (1976). To the degree that the prosecutor's argument was improper, therefore, it constitutes reversible error only if, examined against the backdrop of the entire case, a miscarriage of justice occurred. Commonwealth v. Freeman, 352 Mass. 556, 563-564, 227 N.E.2d 3 (1967). Commonwealth v. Shelley, 374 Mass. 466, 467, 373 N.E.2d 951 (1978).
In the instant case the defendant took the stand and, while under direct examination by his counsel, testified that he had confronted one Murphy, who was the person who had been robbed, and that the defendant had told him, The prosecutor, in final argument, said:
A prosecutor's closing argument which invites a jury to draw an adverse inference from a defendant's failure to deny his guilt is improper. Commonwealth v. Haas, 373 Mass. 545, 559, 369 N.E.2d 692 (1977). Commonwealth v. Cobb, 374 Mass. 514, 520-521, 373 N.E.2d 1145 (1978). Commonwealth v. Mosby, --- Mass.App. ---, --- - ---, a 413 N.E.2d 754 (1980). See Commonwealth v. Sazama, 339 Mass. 154, 157-158, 158 N.E.2d 313 (1959). Assuming that the prosecutor intended such an invitation, rather than a comment on the implausibility of the defendant's testimony, the case here is substantially less egregious than Commonwealth v. Haas, supra, in which the prosecutor's comments were not about the evidence, but simply invited the jury to draw an adverse inference from Haas' failure to deny his guilt, something the defendant in that case had not testified about and was, of course, not bound to do. Moreover, the defense in Haas sought curative instructions, and they were denied. No curative instructions were requested in the case before us.
This case does not present a prosecutor's argument based upon facts not in evidence or on a misstatement of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Shelley, 374 Mass. at 470, 373 N.E.2d 951. Commonwealth v. Ryan, --- Mass.App. ---, ---, b 397 N.E.2d 1128 (1979). Commonwealth v. MOSBY, --- MASS.APP. AT ---, 413 N.E.2D 754.C Since the defendant had introduced into the case (presumably so that the jury would infer his innocence) his readiness to go to the police "to straighten it out," the prosecutor's reference to that testimony in closing was proper and consistent with the state of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Thurber, --- Mass. ---, ---, d 418 N.E.2d 1253 (1981). Even if viewed in more damaging light, i. e., as a generalized comment on the defendant's failure to protest innocence, we doubt, reading the prosecutor's closing as a whole, that the passage complained of caused the closing argument to be unfairly prejudicial. Commonwealth v. Ferreira, --- Mass. ---, --- ----, e 409 N.E.2d 188 (1980).
2. Claimed error in the charge to the jury. In the course of his charge, the judge said, The judge did not say unequivocably that a robbery had occurred; he said one might have, and that comment was immediately followed with a correct instruction that whether there had been a robbery was for the jury to decide. The instruction, fairly read, does not amount to an instruction to the jury as to what inferences they were to draw. Contrast Commonwealth v. Sneed, 376 Mass. 867, 870, 383 N.E.2d 843 (1978); Commonwealth v. Borges, 2 Mass.App. 869, 869-870, 316 N.E.2d 627 (1974); Commonwealth v. Cote, 5 Mass.App. 365, 369-370, 363 N.E.2d 276 (1977), which illustrate a judge's usurpation of the fact-finding function of a jury. More significant, no objection was made to the judge's instructions, and the defendant's case was argued on the theory that a robbery had, in fact, occurred, but that the defendant was mistakenly implicated. In context and in its entirety, the charge was not misleading. See Commonwealth v. McInerney, 373 Mass. 136, 149, 365 N.E.2d 815 (1977); Commonwealth v. Williams, --- Mass. ---, --- n.17, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Porter
...was here no miscarriage of justice. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, --- Mass.App. ---, ---, ---, Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1981) 1514, 1515, 1516, 424 N.E.2d 1149. Judgment affirmed. 1 We note that in charging the jury the judge did not mention any specific inferences, charging generally that inferenc......
-
Com. v. Lowe
...1330, 51 L.Ed.2d 595 (1977). Compare Commonwealth v. Mitchell, --- Mass.App. ---, --- - ---, Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1981) 1514, 1515-1516, 424 N.E.2d 1149, and cases cited. Here the commentary on the evidence was permissible. In addition, the judge instructed the jury regarding the general pr......
-
Com. v. Sherick
...378 Mass. at 477, 392 N.E.2d 534; Commonwealth v. Stokes, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 434, 437-438, 408 N.E.2d 887 (1980); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 12 Mass.App.Ct. 354, 355-356 (1981). Cf. Commonwealth v. Paradiso, 368 Mass. 205, 210-214, 330 N.E.2d 825 (1975), ruling that violation of G.L. c. 278, § ......
-
Com. v. Downey
...v. McColl, 375 Mass. 316, 321, 376 N.E.2d 562 (1978); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1981) 1514, 1517, --- Mass.App. ---, ---, 424 N.E.2d 1149. Contrast Commonwealth v. Glen, Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1981) 1460, 1463, --- Mass.App. ---, ---, 423 N.E.2d 1048. The definitions whic......