Opinion
15-P-1530
03-23-2017
COMMONWEALTH v. Herman D. WATSON.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
After a jury-waived trial in the Superior Court, the defendant, Herman D. Watson, was convicted of assault and battery. On appeal, he claims that the judge (1) erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the defendant on the issue of justification, and (2) erroneously admitted evidence of the defendant's prior bad acts. We affirm.
The defendant was found not guilty on counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and intimidation of a witness.
Background . The judge was presented with the following facts at trial. At the time of the events giving rise to this matter, the defendant lived with his girl friend of five or six years, Tilisa Murphy, in an apartment in Chicopee. Murphy's two year old daughter lived with them. By all accounts, the couple had a "rocky relationship."
On June 30, 2012, the defendant entered the apartment sometime in the latter part of the evening. He exchanged words with Murphy, called her names and, at some point, fell asleep on a couch in the living room. Around 2:00 a.m. on July 1, 2012, Murphy awoke because she heard the defendant "talking, cussing and rambling on." She got up and asked the defendant "what was going on," and asked why he was "cussing and calling [her] names." In response, the defendant struck her three times on the right side of her face with his fist. The defendant grabbed a knife from the kitchen drawer. Murphy grabbed a chair to protect herself. She dropped the chair, the defendant chased her with the knife, and ultimately cut her hand. At first, Murphy could not see the cut because the lights were off. She subsequently saw that blood "was gushing" from her hand "like a fountain." The defendant drove Murphy to the hospital and instructed her to tell the police that she "was fighting over a man" or "got into a fight." He dropped her off at Mercy Hospital. Murphy was transferred to Baystate Hospital where she underwent surgery to repair a sliced artery in her right hand. Murphy initially refused to tell police officers about the incident.
Chicopee police Officer Benoit went to the apartment during the early morning of July 1. Officer Benoit observed "a large amount of blood on the living room carpet" and "blood spatter on the walls." He also "found a bucket that had a bloody rag and there was bloody water in it." He saw blood in the bathroom and in the shower. When Officer Benoit began to take photographs of the apartment, the defendant said "that he was cleaning up the blood in the apartment." He also denied knowledge of what had occurred. Officer Benoit also saw "a brown handle on top of the medicine chest"; when he lifted the handle, he saw that it was "a large kitchen knife that had blood on the handle as well as on the blade."
Detectives arrived at Baystate Hospital later in the morning and questioned Murphy. She was nervous and shaking, and she did not identify the defendant as the perpetrator because she did not want him to get into trouble. After speaking with two persons from the Department of Children and Families, Murphy spoke with detectives, told them what had happened, and identified the defendant as the person who cut her with the knife.
The defendant testified at trial. He stated that he saw Murphy with a "stem," grabbed her hand, and tried to take it away from her. A struggle ensued during which Murphy was "hysterical, scratching and screaming, flinging stuff at [the defendant]." The defendant saw a baggy fall to the ground. He told Murphy that he did not want drugs in his house. Murphy tried to hit him with a plate and a pot cover. He flushed the baggy, which he said contained "crack" cocaine, down the toilet. He testified that Murphy came at him with a knife in her hand. A struggle over the knife ensued in their bedroom during which the defendant gained control of the knife. Murphy continued hitting and scratching and, according to the defendant, "that's where she got cut." The defendant testified that he did not tell the police the truth at the apartment, and gave the police a false statement at the police station, because he did not want the police to take his daughter away, did not want to get arrested, did not want to lose his job, and did not want Murphy to go to jail.
The defendant referred to paraphernalia used to ingest drugs as a "stem."
Discussion . 1. Burden shifting . In a jury-waived case, the trial judge is presumed to have instructed himself properly on the law. See Commonwealth v. Milo M ., 433 Mass. 149, 152 (2001). This presumption will stand "absent contrary indication." Commonwealth v. Batista , 53 Mass. App. Ct. 642, 648 (2002). The defendant contends that the presumption does not apply here because the judge's comments demonstrate that he applied incorrect principles of law. Specifically, after rendering the verdict, but before sentencing, the judge stated:
"[O]n any version of events, the defendant, in my view, was guilty of assault and battery. Whatever initiated this altercation, whether it was him striking Miss Murphy in the face or him grabbing on to her or wrestling with her, pulling her in the living room to try to take an item from her, I cannot find that that was justified."
The defendant claims that the comment demonstrates that the judge erroneously shifted the burden to the defendant to prove that his touching of Murphy was justified, and that this error created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. We disagree.
The parties agree that on the counts of assault and battery and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, the Commonwealth had the burden of proof that the defendant acted without justification. See Commonwealth v. Cabral , 443 Mass. 171, 179 n.17 (2005). More specifically, where the defendant testified that he acted in self-defense, the Commonwealth had the burden of proving the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Harrington , 379 Mass. 446, 452 (1980).
The judge's statement that the defendant's actions were not "justified" in no way indicates that he shifted the burden to the defendant or applied incorrect legal principles to his analysis. The statement made no reference to the burden of proof. Rather, the judge merely explained after trial that even accepting the defendant's version of events, the Commonwealth proved that the grabbing, pulling, and other touching of Murphy constituted an assault and battery. In other words, the Commonwealth proved that the defendant acted without legal justification and did not act in self-defense. Accordingly, the judge's statement was not inconsistent with applicable legal standards. See Milo M ., supra at 152-153.
The defendant's argument is further belied by the not guilty verdict on the count of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, despite Murphy's injuries and hospitalization stemming from the knife wound. The not guilty verdict in the face of such evidence supports the conclusion that the judge carefully weighed the evidence and held the Commonwealth to its high burden of proof. Compare Batista , supra . There was no error.
2. Prior bad acts . The defendant argues that the evidence of prior bad acts was admitted to show his alleged propensity towards violence and constituted prejudicial error. The defendant fails to note that some of the evidence now complained of was admitted without objection, that the judge sustained objections to some questions regarding prior bad acts, and that most of this evidence was elicited on redirect examination of Murphy. Our careful review of the transcript reveals the absence of prejudicial error and no abuse of discretion.
First, the evidence that the defendant had previously threatened Murphy with knives, injured her, and attacked her, was admissible to (1) rebut the defendant's claim that Murphy initiated the violence at issue, (2) explain why Murphy did not initially tell the police that the defendant was the assailant, (3) demonstrate the hostile nature of the relationship between the parties, and (4) explain Murphy's state of mind. See Commonwealth v. Butler , 445 Mass. 568, 575-576 (2005) ; Commonwealth v. Julien , 59 Mass. App. Ct. 679, 686 (2003).
Second, the defendant opened the door to the admission of much of this evidence by cross-examining Murphy about a prior incident during which she struck the defendant with a vase. In response, Murphy explained on redirect examination that she acted in self-defense because the defendant had previously attacked her with a knife. Her testimony explained her conduct, provided context, and rebutted the defendant's claim that she was the first aggressor in the present incident.
Third, in a jury-waived trial, the judge is presumed to have applied correct principles of law and not to have relied on evidence for an improper purpose. See Milo M ., 433 Mass. at 152 ; Commonwealth v. Dragotta , 89 Mass. App. Ct. 119, 128 (2016).
Fourth, the judge made clear on the record that he did not consider the bad act evidence as propensity evidence. Finally, the judge found the defendant not guilty on the counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and intimidation of a witness, which further contradicts the claim that the judge considered the prior bad act evidence for impermissible purposes.
The judge stated on the record that the "evidence admitted of prior history of alleged assaultive behavior on the part of the defendant against Miss Murphy ... wasn't admitted for consideration of the propensity. That was admitted for a limited purpose to show the nature of the relationship. And by any and all accounts, they had a tumultuous and combative relationship."
--------
Judgment affirmed .