Opinion
14-P-1172
05-26-2017
COMMONWEALTH v. Jesse JEDRZEJCZYK.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Following a 2013 jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant Jesse Jedrzejczyk was found guilty of a civil rights violation. He appeals, arguing that the judge erred in allowing evidence of a prior bad act. We affirm.
He was acquitted of criminal harassment and violating a civil rights order.
The defendant initially had an amicable relationship with the victim, a tenant living in the first floor unit of the defendant's multi-family house. After the victim gave birth to a baby who appeared to have darker skin than the victim, the defendant started making derogatory comments towards both the baby and the victim. The defendant and his wife began a series of overt actions against the victim and her baby consisting of banging on the child's window, breaking that same window, locking the family out of the basement laundry room, and sending a number of specious eviction notices.
The victim testified to hearing the defendant saying "nigger baby" and referring to her and her baby as "niggers" on multiple occasions.
Prior to trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine seeking to admit evidence of the defendant's barrage of epithet-filled aggression against another neighbor, that was witnessed by the victim. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the potential prejudice outweighed the probative value of the evidence. After a hearing, the Commonwealth's motion was allowed. During trial, the victim testified to witnessing the incident between the defendant and the neighbor. The neighbor also testified to the incident. The defendant did not renew his substantive objection to this testimony.
The Commonwealth's motion in limine to admit testimony of an earlier bad act was denied.
--------
While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Judicial Court decided in Commonwealth v. Grady, 474 Mass. 715, 719 (2016), that going forward, defendants are no longer required "to object to the admission of evidence at trial where he or she has already sought to preclude the very same evidence at the motion in limine stage, and the motion was heard and denied." This holding is only applicable to trials which commenced after the Grady decision was issued in 2016. As such, we consider the issue waived as the defendant failed to renew any objection at trial. We therefore review to determine whether there is error and if so, whether it created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. See Commonwealth v. Lacoy, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 427, 441 n.21 (2016). We discern no error, much less a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice.
The judge allowed the Commonwealth to introduce the prior bad act evidence for the purpose of showing its effect on the victim's state of mind. Commonwealth v. McKinnon, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 398, 404 (1993). The evidence was also admissible to establish the defendant's state of mind and his motive. See Commonwealth v. Butler, 445 Mass. 568, 574-575 (2005). The victim's testimony on this incident was brief in comparison to her testimony on the other occasions where the defendant directly used racial slurs towards her and her baby. See Commonwealth v. Dorazio, 472 Mass. 535, 542-543 (2015) (comparing amount of bad act testimony to overall testimony). Furthermore, the defendant elicited additional testimony regarding the prior bad act from the victim in this case and the victim/witness from a prior case. The judge properly instructed the jury during his charge about the proper use of bad act evidence. We therefore conclude that the judge did not err in allowing the evidence to be admitted as the evidence was relevant, probative, and not unduly prejudicial.
Judgment affirmed.