Evidence – Cellphone recording – Prior bad act

Listen to this article

Where a defendant was found to be a youthful offender, the defendant’s conviction must be vacated because of a combination of errors related to the jury’s consideration of a video recording extracted from the defendant’s cellphone depicting a youth, allegedly the defendant, pointing a gun at the phone’s camera.

“Following a jury trial in the Juvenile Court, the defendant was found to be a youthful offender on an indictment for carrying a firearm without a license in violation of G.L.c. 269, §10(a). On appeal, the defendant asserts, inter alia, that the judge erred in admitting a video recording, which was extracted from the defendant’s cellular telephone, that depicted a youth, allegedly the defendant, pointing a gun at the phone’s camera. Concluding on this record that a combination of errors related to the jury’s consideration of this video recording resulted in prejudicial error, we vacate the defendant’s conviction. Because we also conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction, we remand the case to the Juvenile Court for a new trial should the Commonwealth choose to pursue one. …

“… The defendant asserts that the judge abused her discretion in admitting the cellphone video recording without first analyzing the recording’s admissibility as evidence of a prior bad act. …

“The defendant raises a number of arguments concerning the video recording depicting a youth who was alleged to be the defendant. We agree that certain errors, in combination, require that we vacate the finding that the defendant is a youthful offender and remand the matter to the trial court for a new trial should the Commonwealth choose to pursue one. …

“On this record, we conclude that admitting the video recording without giving the jury proper instructions and instructing the jury that the defendant was the person in the video was error. … Because we agree with the defendant’s argument that there was a ‘reasonable possibility’ that the admission of the video recording ‘might have contributed to the jury’s verdict,’ we conclude that the error was prejudicial. …

“Accordingly, we vacate the judgment, set aside the verdict, and remand for a new trial should the Commonwealth choose to pursue one.”

Commonwealth v. Sweeney (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-019-26) (12 pages) (Docket No. 24-P-681) (Feb. 18, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.