Opinion
20-P-1342
11-16-2021
COMMONWEALTH v. Joao Desa BRAZAO.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
Following a jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant was convicted of strangulation in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15D (b ), and three counts of rape in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22 (b ). The convictions were based on evidence that the defendant sexually assaulted an acquaintance after she accepted a ride home from school. The defendant's sole claim on appeal is that the testimony of the victim alone, without medical, forensic, or other corroborating evidence, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant strangled and raped her. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a rational juror could have found the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979).
To convict the defendant of strangulation, the Commonwealth was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally interfered with the victim's normal breathing or circulation of blood by applying substantial pressure to her throat or neck. See Commonwealth v. Rogers, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 781, 782-783 (2019), citing G. L. c. 265, § 15D (a ). Here, the victim testified that after the defendant stopped his car, he turned and "grabbed" her neck with two hands such that she could not breathe or talk. The defendant then directed her "to go to the back seat." After the victim did so, the defendant followed her and again placed both of his hands around the victim's neck, causing her to "pass[ ] out." A rational juror could have found that this evidence was more than sufficient to establish that the defendant intentionally interfered with the victim's breathing or circulation of blood by applying substantial pressure to her throat or neck.
To support a conviction of rape, the Commonwealth was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim, either natural or unnatural, compelling the victim to submit against her will by force or threat of bodily injury. See G. L. c. 265, § 22 (b ). See also Commonwealth v. Sherry, 386 Mass. 682, 687 (1982). The victim testified to three incidents of rape. After the defendant strangled the victim in the backseat and ignored her plea to stop, the defendant penetrated the victim's vagina and anus with his penis against her will. The defendant also pushed the victim's head down, forcing his penis into her mouth. This evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in three incidents of rape -- vaginal, anal, and oral.
As we have previously said, "[w]e reject the defendant's contention that corroborative, extrinsic, or forensic evidence, or expert or third-party witness testimony, is required to support a conviction of rape or sexual assault where the victim testified as a witness at the trial." Commonwealth v. Santos, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 3 (2021). Such corroborative evidence is not required to sustain a conviction. See id. The victim's testimony alone, as credited by the jury, sufficed to support the defendant's convictions.
Judgments affirmed.