Criminal – Assault – Spouse’s conduct

Listen to this article

Where a jury in District Court convicted a defendant of larceny in excess of $250 and assault and battery, the assault and battery conviction must be reversed because the trial judge erred in admitting evidence that the defendant’s wife allegedly slapped a store employee.

“… On January 26, 2017, David Dudis, a loss prevention agent at the Big Y supermarket in South Hadley, was in the surveillance room of the store where monitors displayed video from approximately thirty-four security cameras. A shopper, later identified as the defendant, caught Dudis’s attention because he was loading boxes of Red Bull energy drink, a ‘high theft’ item, into his shopping cart. …

“The defendant contends that the judge improperly admitted, over his objection, testimony from Dudis on redirect examination that the defendant’s wife appeared at the scene of the scuffle outside the Big Y and purportedly slapped another loss prevention agent in the face. The defendant further asserts that the judge compounded her error by permitting the Commonwealth to ask Dudis, over defense counsel’s objection, whether the defendant’s wife was charged with assault and battery in connection with this incident. In the defendant’s view, any evidence regarding his wife’s alleged conduct was irrelevant and prejudicial. We agree. …

“On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Dudis numerous questions about how he restrained the defendant, both inside the entrance vestibule and then outside on the sidewalk. The defendant’s theory of the case was that he did not commit assault and battery where Dudis was the aggressor and used excessive force on the defendant. The purported behavior of the defendant’s wife outside the Big Y was not relevant to any fact necessary to prove the assault and battery charge against the defendant. Accordingly, the judge erred in admitting this testimony. …

“… Here, contrary to the Commonwealth’s argument, the defendant did not open the door to a line of inquiry on redirect examination concerning his wife’s alleged assault and battery of a store employee. Defense counsel certainly questioned Dudis extensively on cross-examination about what transpired with the defendant outside the grocery store. However, defense counsel carefully avoided any mention whatsoever of the defendant’s wife. That being the case, no door was opened. …

“Viewing the evidence as a whole, we cannot say that the admission of this evidence did not influence the jury or had but a very slight effect. The defendant was entitled to be judged solely on the evidence against him, not also on the alleged criminal actions of a third party. Allowing the jury to hear inadmissible testimony regarding the conduct of the defendant’s wife constituted prejudicial error. Therefore, we reverse the defendant’s conviction of assault and battery.”

Commonwealth v. Duncan (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-034-19) (12 pages) (Docket No. 17-P-1565) (Feb. 12, 2019).

Click to read the full text of the opinion.