Com. v. Olson
| Decision Date | 01 October 1987 |
| Citation | 510 N.E.2d 787,24 Mass.App.Ct. 539 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Michelle Houle OLSON. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Andrew Silverman, Committee for Public Counsel Services, Boston, for defendant.
Dianne M. Dillon, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Com.
Before GREANEY, C.J., and QUIRICO and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
After a trial by jury, the defendant was convicted of three offenses, all allegedly committed on the same date and against the same victim. Two of the convictions were of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, to wit: a knife (G.L. c. 265, § 15A), 1 and one was of assault with intent to kill, being armed with a dangerous weapon, to wit, a knife (G.L. c. 265, § 18). 2
On appeal the defendant contends that the trial judge violated her constitutional right to present a defense by her rulings (1) preventing the defendant from testifying as to her state of mind during the events out of which the indictments arose, and (2) limiting her cross-examination of the victim concerning his admitted use of cocaine on the night of the incident. In addition, the defendant contends that the absence of any jury instruction on the Commonwealth's burden of proving that her stabbings of the victim were not accidental created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. We hold that there was no error, and affirm the judgments.
The jury could reasonably have found the facts that follow. Beginning on the evening of August 25, 1984, and continuing into the early hours of the next day, the victim, Walter "Westy" Kobylanski, and his girl friend had a birthday party for Westy at their apartment in Chicopee. Those attending the party included the defendant's husband, Gary Olson. The defendant was not invited. There had been domestic problems between the defendant and her husband before that date. After completing her work shift at 11:00 P.M., the defendant drove to the locale of the apartment where the party was being held, appeared at the door inquiring about her husband, and was told to leave because her presence was not wanted. She left and then returned to the apartment at about 4:00 A.M. on the 26th. The victim answered the door, and the defendant again asked to speak with her husband. After a very unpleasant conversation at the door Olson rejoined the party and the defendant returned to her car.
Shortly thereafter, the victim heard what sounded "like rocks being thrown at the apartment," and he went outside to investigate. Seeing the defendant on the sidewalk, he told her to leave. What happened next was the subject of highly contradictory testimony, and the jury appears to have rejected the defendant's testimony and to have accepted the testimony of the victim and several witnesses, including the defendant's husband, who testified for the Commonwealth. Accordingly, we primarily recount the prosecution version of the facts.
An argument followed the "rock throwing," and the victim and the defendant became entangled on the ground while blows were exchanged. When the two separated, the victim headed toward the apartment, and the defendant toward her car. When the defendant got to her car she reached in and armed herself with two large kitchen knives that were there with other kitchen utensils and personal effects belonging to her brother who had been using the car that day to move. The defendant then turned toward the victim, continuing the verbal abuse. She then smashed the windshield of the victim's car with the knife handles.
While that was going on, Olson came out of the apartment and he and the victim tried to disarm the defendant. The victim struck the defendant, and she then "spun around and hit [the victim] on the arm" with one of the knives and cut him. At about that time the defendant's husband kicked one of the knives out of the defendant's hand. She dove to retrieve the knife, straightened up, "lunged" at the victim, and stabbed him in the groin, severing his left femoral artery. Olson then subdued the defendant, she broke free, ran to her car, and drove off.
In contrast, the defendant attempted to prove, by her testimony, that the victim had harassed, threatened, and beat her; and that, fearful of further injury, she armed herself with the knives for self-defense. As to the first time she cut the victim, she maintained that she was "totally scared" and had only attempted to block any further blows upon her, not realizing that she had cut the victim's arm. She testified further that, after she recovered the knife which her husband had kicked from her hand, she was straightening up when she saw the victim "running at" her and she therefore "lunged forward with the knife in [her] hand" because the victim was "ready to hit [her] and [she] had to stop him."
The defendant contends that on several occasions during the course of the trial the judge made rulings which deprived her of her constitutional right to present evidence relevant to the issues involved. A defendant in a criminal case is, of course, entitled to present evidence concerning issues that might have "a significant impact on the result of the trial ..." Commonwealth v. Bohannon, 376 Mass. 90, 94, 378 N.E.2d 987 (1978). When such evidence is excluded "the right to present a full defense has been denied." Ibid.
One of the issues involved at the trial was whether the alleged acts of assault and battery by the defendant were justified as committed in self-defense. In her testimony on direct examination the defendant stated a number of times that when the victim and her husband were fighting her, threatening her, or approaching her, she felt "afraid," "scared," and "vulnerable" because she had been struck and injured. She testified that she was "afraid of both of them," that the victim had "already beaten" her, that her husband had "beaten [her] before." Upon objection by the Commonwealth, the judge struck out the last statement that her husband had "beaten [her] before." The defendant made no objection to that ruling, and she made no offer of proof concerning the particulars of when, where and how her husband had previously beaten or battered her. During cross-examination of the defendant the prosecutor attempted to minimize the reasonable basis of the fear, if any, motivating her claim of self-defense by getting her to "admit that [she] knew that [the victim and Olson] were just trying to get the knives away ..." (emphasis added.) She responded:
On redirect examination defense counsel attempted to elaborate on what the defendant had meant by this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
...not be considered on appeal. This principle was stated by Justice Quirico, writing for the Appeals Court in Commonwealth v. Olson, 24 Mass.App.Ct. 539, 544, 510 N.E.2d 787 (1987), as follows: "A lawyer cannot try a case on one theory and then, having lost on that theory, argue before an app......
-
Com. v. Claudio
...Procedure § 735 (2d ed. 1983). See also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 399 Mass. 14, 15, 502 N.E.2d 506 (1987); Commonwealth v. Olson, 24 Mass.App.Ct. 539, 544-545, 510 N.E.2d 787 (1987) (appeal must be based on what took place at trial).13 The pertinent portions of the charge were as follows:"Fo......
-
Commw. v. Perryman
...argue before an appellate court about alleged issues which might have been, but were not, raised at the trial." Commonwealth v. Olson, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 539, 544 (1987). Second, the defendant offers no relevant authority supporting the identity of conditions he posits as a prerequisite for ......
-
Commonwealth v. Perryman
...argue before an appellate court about alleged issues which might have been, but were not, raised at the trial." Commonwealth v. Olson, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 539, 544 (1987). Second, the defendant offers no relevant authority supporting the identity of conditions he posits as a prerequisite for ......