Commonwealth v. Leonard
| Docket Number | 22-P-1187 |
| Decision Date | 28 December 2023 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. ROBERT J. LEONARD. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
1
COMMONWEALTH
v.
ROBERT J. LEONARD.
No. 22-P-1187
Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Barnstable
December 28, 2023
Heard. November 1, 2023.
Complaint received and sworn to in the Barnstable Division of the District Court Department on July 20, 2020. Complaint received and sworn to in the Plymouth Division of the District Court Department on October 9, 2020.
After consolidation, the cases were tried before Edward F. X. Lynch, J.
Robert J. Spavento for the defendant.
Rose-Ellen El Khoury, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Present: Green, C.J., Blake, & Henry, JJ.
GREEN, C.J.
On appeal from his convictions of various charges stemming from his operation of a motor vehicle while
under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI),[1] the defendant contends that the judge improperly denied his requests (1) for attorney-led voir dire of prospective jurors, (2) to bifurcate from the trial the charge of operating a motor vehicle with a license suspended for OUI, and (3) for certain jury instructions. Discerning in the defendant's claims no cause to disturb the judgments, we affirm and address the defendant's arguments in turn.
Background.
We summarize the facts the jury could have found based on the evidence at trial. On July 18, 2020, a driver near the Sagamore Bridge saw a white Ford Explorer driving erratically. He described the Explorer coming within five to seven feet of the rear driver's side of his vehicle, at a speed of approximately seventy-five miles per hour. The driver of the Explorer, who was later identified as the defendant, had a "very red face" as he tailgated another vehicle. At one point, the defendant "almost went underneath the steering wheel" to retrieve an object and, within a short
time thereafter, "a metallic object . . . [went] out the window" of the Explorer. The driver who observed the erratic operations called 911, and police responded.
A responding police officer located the Explorer, activated her cruiser's blue lights to signal the defendant to pull over, and, when he failed to pull over, activated her siren. Other officers joined in pursuit of the Explorer. The original responding police officer saw the Explorer illegally pass other vehicles in front of it on the road, and saw the defendant throw a paper bag out the window of the Explorer. As the Explorer moved into an area with fewer vehicles around it, the officers attempted to box the Explorer in, but the defendant rammed the Explorer into one of the cruisers. The defendant used the wrong entrance to the ramp leading to the Sagamore Bridge, and an officer saw it travel across the bridge at a speed "in excess of [ninety] miles per hour." Eventually, while traveling at a high rate of speed, the Explorer struck another vehicle from behind, struck it again while passing on its left, and then went off the road into the median and struck a tree.
As officers approached the Explorer after it crashed into the tree, they observed the defendant "stumbling as he ran" from the vehicle. The defendant had "bloodshot, glassy eyes, slurred speech, and a strong odor of alcohol." The arresting officer formed the opinion that the defendant was intoxicated. The
defendant was transported to a local hospital. Empty alcohol bottles were located in the rear of the Explorer during an inventory search.[2]
1. Denial of attorney-led voir dire.
On March 4, 2022, approximately seven weeks before trial was scheduled to occur, the defendant filed a motion for attorney-led voir dire of prospective jurors,[3] under District Court Standing Order 1-18 (2018) (standing order).[4] On March 7, 2022, the motion was denied by margin endorsement but without explanation. On the first day of trial, defense counsel raised the issue again and the judge stated how he would handle voir dire. The defendant contends that the denial of his motion violated the clear mandate of the standing order requiring that a District Court judge allow attorney-led voir dire if properly requested before
trial.[5] We agree.[6] However, our conclusion that the judge erroneously denied the motion does not end our inquiry; it remains to consider whether the error warrants any relief.
Though the defendant asserts that the violation of the standing order is of constitutional magnitude, implicating his right to trial by an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, he cites no authority for the proposition that a violation of the standing order constitutes a denial of that right, or that it requires automatic reversal of a conviction. We view the standing order not as a constitutional imperative, but as a mechanism developed by the chief justice of the District Court to support accomplishment of the objective of empanelling a fair and impartial jury.[7] We accordingly consider
whether the judge's violation of the standing order gave rise to any prejudice and conclude that the defendant has not shown prejudice. See Commonwealth v. Leopold L., 96 Mass.App.Ct. 796, 808 (2020) (applying prejudicial error standard to violations of Juvenile Court Standing Order 1-17 and G. L. c. 119, § 56, concerning continuances).
The defendant broadly suggests that allowing counsel to question prospective jurors directly improves the process of discovering possible juror prejudice. While that may generally be true, the defendant has not shown that allowing counsel to question the prospective jurors here would have improved the process. The judge asked follow-up questions to the jurors on specific topics, within reason, when the parties requested them. Though the defendant asserts on appeal that the judge improperly denied certain questions the defendant wished to pose to the jurors, the portions of the transcript cited by the defendant reveal that the judge declined to ask those questions because he addressed them in substance in other ways, and the defendant has not identified any topic he wanted to explore that was not covered by the judge's questions. It is settled that though the judge must determine that jurors are impartial, the "judge has broad discretion as to the questions to be asked, and need not put the specific questions posed by the defendant." Commonwealth v. Morales, 440 Mass. 536, 548-549 (2003), quoting Commonwealth v. Sanders, 383 Mass. 637, 641 (1981).
Even in the Superior Court, where the right of counsel to conduct attorney-led voir dire of prospective jurors is secured by statute, see G. L. c. 234A, § 67D, the scope of questioning is...
To continue reading
Request your trial