Opinion
18-P-1538
01-24-2020
COMMONWEALTH v. David MEDEIROS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
David Medeiros was convicted by a jury of rape of a child aggravated by an age difference in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 23A, and rape of a child by force in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22A. On appeal the defendant argues that the judge erred in denying his motion for a required finding of not guilty of rape of a child by force because the Commonwealth provided insufficient evidence of force. We affirm.
Discussion. When reviewing the denial of a motion for a required finding of not guilty we must determine "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 (1979).
The essential elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to sustain a conviction of rape of a child by force are that the defendant committed (1) sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, (2) with a child under sixteen years of age, (3) by force or threat of bodily injury, (4) and against the child's will. See G. L. c. 265, § 22A. The defendant only contends that there was insufficient evidence of use of force.
"Proof of the force element of rape under G. L. c. 265, § 22A, may be established by physical force or constructive force." Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 245, 254 (2008). Here, the rape by force conviction is supported by substantial evidence of both physical force and constructive force.
1. Physical force. "[E]vidence that the defendant forced the [victim] onto her bed, removed and disarranged her clothes while holding her down, and had intercourse with her while the [victim] pushed at him and told him to stop ... was sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that intercourse took place by force and against the [victim's] will." Commonwealth v. Stockhammer, 409 Mass. 867, 873 (1991). Likewise, facts showing that the defendant forcibly pulled down the victim's pants and turned her onto her back without her cooperation in order to commit the rape constituted sufficient evidence to satisfy the element of force. Commonwealth v. Oquendo, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 190, 193 (2013).
Here, the facts the jury could have found in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth included that the defendant: (1) pulled the victim's pants and underpants down, (2) pushed the victim onto his bed, (3) held the victim's arm behind her back causing her to feel pain, (4) put his fingers in the victim's vagina causing her to feel pain, (5) put his penis in the victim's "butt" causing her to feel pain, (6) refused to stop when the victim told him to stop, and (7) refused to let the victim leave the room when she told him she wanted to leave. This evidence established sufficient physical force used on the victim by the defendant to satisfy the element of force required pursuant to G. L. c. 265, § 22A.
2. Constructive force. The conviction was also supported under the alternative theory of constructive force. When considering constructive force, "an examination of the circumstances or fear in which the victim is placed, the impact of those circumstances or fear on the victim's power to resist and the defendant's conduct all are relevant to the determination whether conduct complained of by the victim was accomplished by force and against the victim's will." Commonwealth v. Caracciola, 409 Mass. 648, 651 (1991). "Among the spectrum of factors which may be considered on the question of the sufficiency of the evidence proving constructive force in accomplishing a rape against a child is the historical and contextual relationship between the victim and the defendant, as well as the manner and means by which the rape is perpetrated, which factors, among others, bear on whether the victim's ability to resist the rape was overborne or negated." Armstrong, 73 Mass. App. Ct. at 255.
In this case the defendant was the victim's stepfather and the victim lived with her mother, her siblings, the defendant's children, and the defendant. At the time of the rape the defendant was forty years old and the victim was thirteen years old; however, as a result of a learning disability her maturity level was closer to that of a younger child. The victim's father described her as "shy" and "gullible." On the date the rape occurred, the victim's mother was not home and the defendant was the authority figure in the house. The victim had gone to the defendant's bedroom to seek permission to go to a friend's house. The defendant told the victim he wanted something from her body. The victim did not comprehend and believed the defendant wanted her to do some chores but the defendant told the victim he meant her vagina. The defendant then locked the doors in the bedroom and closed the curtain. After the defendant closed off the room, the victim was scared. The defendant then raped her.
The victim's father testified that the victim, who was sixteen at the time of trial, "ha[d] the mentality of a [five] year old."
--------
The evidence showed that the defendant took actions that were "calculated to instill fear in the [victim] in order for the defendant to achieve his goal." Caracciola, 409 Mass. at 653. Given the difference in age between the defendant and the victim, the defendant's position as authority figure, the closing off of the room to allow the defendant to be alone with the victim, and the victim's learning disability, any reasonable jury could have found the evidence was sufficient to show that the victim's power to resist was overborne by the defendant and that the rape was committed against the victim's will.
Accordingly, there was no error in the denial of the motion for a required finding since there was sufficient evidence, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, from which a rational trier of fact could have found the essential element of force beyond a reasonable doubt.
Judgments affirmed.