Commonwealth v. Jean-Louis

• Docket Number: 23-P-63
• Decision Date: 22 December 2023
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. JUNIAS JEAN-LOUIS.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

1

COMMONWEALTH
v.
JUNIAS JEAN-LOUIS.

No. 23-P-63

Appeals Court of Massachusetts

December 22, 2023

Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass.App.Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Following a jury trial in the Superior Court in 2005, the defendant was found guilty of assault with intent to rape, kidnapping, indecent assault and battery on a person over the age of fourteen, assault and battery, threatening to commit a crime, and intimidation of a witness. Prior to sentencing, the trial judge granted the defendant a new trial based on the procedure the judge had required the parties to follow in exercising peremptory challenges to jurors. After the Commonwealth appealed, the order for new trial was reversed. See Commonwealth v. Jean-Louis, 70 Mass.App.Ct. 740 (2007). In 2011, a panel of this court affirmed the defendant's convictions in an unpublished decision. See Commonwealth v. Jean-Louis, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 1119 (2011), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 1174 (2013). Ten years later, after his first motion for

2

new trial filed by a second appellate attorney was denied in 2013, the defendant, through a third appellate attorney, filed a second motion for new trial, this time alleging (1) that his original appellate counsel (appellate counsel) was ineffective for not pursuing an issue regarding limitations on cross-examination of the victim and (2) that both trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise and pursue, respectively, an issue relative to his recorded statement to police. The motion judge, who was not the trial judge, denied the defendant's motion in a thorough, sixteen-page decision.^[1]Concluding that neither counsel was ineffective and discerning no error in the motion judge's denial of the defendant's motion for new trial, we affirm.

Background.

We recite the facts as the jury could have found them, reserving certain details for further discussion. On the night of May 8, 2003, the victim was talking on her cell phone in the lobby of her apartment building. The defendant entered the lobby with the victim's older brother and another man whom the victim did not know. Prior to that night, the victim had rejected the defendant's romantic overtures on a couple of occasions. When the victim walked toward the stairwell to go up to her apartment, the defendant followed her

3

(the victim's brother and the other man had taken the elevator). When the victim declined the defendant's advances, he became verbally and then physically aggressive toward her. The defendant trapped the victim in the stairwell, where he sexually assaulted and beat her. When the victim attempted to call the police, he threw her cell phone on the ground and threatened to shoot her if she screamed. Eventually, as she struggled against the defendant, the victim began screaming and "slamming the door harder and harder . . . so someone could hear [her]." The defendant ran up the stairs and the victim fled outside. She ran, still screaming, past a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority station and a security guard, to a nearby park where she saw police officers.

Police were in the area in response to a 911 call from the security guard, who heard the victim screaming. The officers described the victim as "hysterical" and "really physically shaking." A detective who interviewed her the following morning noted that the victim had a "fat lip" and scratches on both sides of her neck as well as on her arms.

Discussion.

The parties disagree as to which standard of review applies in this appeal. The defendant argues that our review of the motion judge's decision is de novo "[b]ecause the motion judge did not preside over the trial or conduct an evidentiary hearing . . . and the only relevant evidence . . .

4

consisted of affidavits and other documentary evidence." Commonwealth v. Mazza, 484 Mass. 539, 547 (2020). See Commonwealth v. Duguay, 492 Mass. 520, 531 (2023) ("where the motion judge neither presided over the trial nor conducted an evidentiary hearing, we are in as good a position as the motion judge to assess the documentary evidence found within the record, thus allowing this court to review the judge's decision de novo"). The Commonwealth counters that we should review the motion judge's decision for error of law or abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Gibson, 492 Mass. 559, 567-568 (2023) (motion judge, who was not trial judge, "did not abuse her discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial" after nonevidentiary hearing); Commonwealth v. Fernandes, 492 Mass. 469, 474-475 (2023) ("In analyzing the defendant's motion for a new trial where the motion judge neither presided at trial nor held an evidentiary hearing, we examine [his] conclusion only to determine whether there has been a significant error of law or other abuse of discretion, although as he did not assess the credibility of any witnesses, we regard ourselves in as good a position as the motion judge to assess the trial record" [quotations and citation omitted]). We need not resolve the dispute because the claims fail even under de novo review, the standard more favorable to the defendant.

5

"A defendant has a...