CRIMINAL LAW - PROSECUTORIAL MISTAKE RESULTS IN SEXUAL ASSAULT RETRIAL - COMMONWEALTH V. ANGEL LUIS ALVAREZ.

AuthorPaulson, Danielle

In a criminal trial, it is the role of a prosecutor to argue zealously in order to secure a conviction of the defendant. (1) However, a prosecutor's argument is flawed when she misspeaks in her opening or closing argument and introduces facts not supported by evidence that was submitted over the course of the trial. (2) Such an error is only deemed non-prejudicial if the court is "sure that the error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect." (3) In 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ("SJC"), in Commonwealth v. Angel Luis Alvarez, (4) considered whether "the prosecutor's closing argument was prejudicial error, where she told the jury of critical corroborative evidence that was not presented at trial." (5) The SJC held that the defendant's convictions must be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial because the court could not "say with assurance that the prosecutor's improper closing argument could not have influenced the jury to convict." (6)

The Commonwealth's case relied on the credibility of Camila, (7) a twelve year old girl, who testified to enduring multiple acts of sexual abuse by the defendant when she was between the ages of six and nine. (8) The defendant is Camila's godfather and married to her aunt. (9) During trial, Camila recalled several instances where the defendant sexually assaulted her when the two were alone together. (10)

After the first alleged sexual assault, Camila returned home and asked her mother if she could shower because she felt "wet and sticky and gross." (11) Camila later testified that when she confided in her mother about her sexual abuse, she spoke of the first sexual assault and said "I told them how I felt gross and wet; that's why I wanted to take the shower." (12) This incident of sexual assault was the only assault that Camila indicated that the defendant had ejaculated, and therefore, the prosecutor understood that corroboration of Camila feeling "wet and sticky" from another source would increase the perceived validity of Camila's testimony. (13) The prosecutor, however, failed to elicit this testimony from either Camila or her mother during trial, yet referenced the alleged corroboration during her closing argument. (14) Nevertheless, a Superior Court jury found the defendant guilty on three counts of rape of a child and one count of indecent assault and battery upon a child. (15)

The SJC was tasked with determining whether the error in the prosecutor's closing argument was prejudicial enough to potentially influence the jury in their decision to convict the defendant. (16) The SJC held that since the sole witness in the Commonwealth's case was a child, the prosecutor misspoke when referencing the corroborative testimony during her opening statement and closing argument, and in addition, defense counsel's timely objection did not result in remedial jury instructions, thus, the defendant's conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. (17) Under Massachusetts case law, statements made during closing arguments are limited to the evidence that has been submitted throughout the trial. (18) If a prosecutor, in a closing argument, mistakenly includes evidence that was not presented during trial, the mistake will be allowed only if the court is assured that the mistake did not influence the jury in their decision to convict the defendant. (19) Whether the mistake influenced the jury enough to affect a conviction will usually depend on whether the mistake went to the "heart of the case." (20) Regardless of the severity of the crime, the SJC has found prejudicial error stemming from prosecutorial misstatements, which results in an ultimate reversal of the defendant's conviction. (21) The SJC will determine the strength of the prosecution's case, absent the mistake, before deciphering the weight of a prosecutorial mistake. (22) The overall strength of the prosecution's case is often primarily reliant on the credibility of the witnesses called to testify. (23)

A party will often call expert witnesses to testify when their "specialized knowledge would be helpful to the jury." (24) When an expert witness is the treating physician of the child victim of sexual abuse and is testifying to the characteristics of the sexually abused child, the SJC has held that the testimony must "be confined to a description of the general or typical characteristics shared by child victims of sexual abuse." (25) However, the SJC has also held that certain expert testimony from a treating physician can be admitted when it would be of substantial value to the jury's understanding of the issue at hand. (26) When the probative value of the expert witness testimony is used to debunk the assumption that all child victims of sexual abuse suffer physical injuries to their genitals, the SJC has held that the Commonwealth does not need to call a non-treating physician expert to testify. (27)

A defendant is allowed to present evidence of alleged inadequacies of police investigations, as it permits the jury to consider whether there is reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence. (28) Defense counsel may argue that an inadequate police investigation should lead to an acquittal for his or her client. (29) However, the judge ultimately has discretion in whether to provide the jury with a Bowden instruction. (30)

In Commonwealth v. Alvarez, the SJC reversed the defendant's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial because the court could not assure that the "prosecutor's improper closing argument could not have influenced the jury to convict." (31) Chief Justice Gants, writing for the court, articulated that while the prosecution is allowed to argue fervently for a defendant's conviction, prosecutors must limit their closing arguments to what was properly admitted into evidence throughout the duration of the trial. (32) The SJC held that even though the trial judge instructed the jury not to consider the closing argument as part of the evidence used during deliberation, the court could not "be confident that the jury recognized that the prosecutor erred and that the mother never gave this [corroborating evidence]." (33) Although the court recognized the seriousness of the crime for which the defendant was convicted, it was reminded that it also had vacated past defendants' convictions when there was prejudicial error. (34)

The SJC recognized the potential danger in allowing a witness who personally treated the child victim of sexual abuse to testify as an expert witness...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT