Opinion
13-P-1311
03-16-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. KEITH BEAULIEU.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant, Keith Beaulieu, was convicted of three counts of assault and battery following a jury trial in the Superior Court. He appeals, claiming that the judge erred in admitting evidence of uncharged threats and that certain portions of the prosecutor's closing argument were improper. We affirm.
Prior to trial, the Commonwealth nolle prossed two indictments charging assault and battery on a public servant. At the close of the Commonwealth's case, the judge allowed a motion for a required finding of not guilty on a charge of inciting a riot.
1. Background. The jury could have found the following facts. In a prior competency hearing in the District Court, the defendant was handcuffed, shackled, and seated before the court in an enclosed area. Two court officers were present. When a certain witness began to testify, the defendant became upset and began to swear. As the court officers tried to calm the defendant, he became increasingly agitated, yelling and cursing. When the judge ordered the defendant removed from the courtroom, the defendant placed his cuffed hands over a court officer's face and against the officer's neck, causing the officer to yell he was being strangled. The defendant bit the officer. Additional court officers arrived and the defendant continued to fight, flailing his arms and legs and attempting to bite the officers. The defendant struck and grabbed another court officer, breaking this officer's thumb. During the struggle, the defendant stated that he was "going to kill the judge" and that "he was going to kill everybody." He continued to yell, "I'll kill you when I get out." Upon transport to a house of correction, the defendant began to scream that "when he returned to [the District Court] he would do whatever he did in the courtroom to the court officers." The defendant testified, claiming self-defense, a theory that was rejected by the jury.
The defendant claimed that the court officers were the aggressors and that he was forced to grab a court officer to avoid falling. He denied biting, trying to strangle, and assaulting the court officers.
2. Uncharged threats. The evidence of the uncharged threats that occurred during the incident was deemed admissible, a point unchallenged by the defendant at trial. The later uncharged threats that occurred at the house of correction were the subject of a motion in limine as well as sidebar conferences during the trial. Based on the defendant's objections, the judge excluded the later threats, with the exception of the defendant's threat to return to the courthouse to assault the officers again. The defendant contends the evidence of these uncharged threats was prejudicial bad act evidence and therefore inadmissible. We disagree.
"[E]vidence of uncharged criminal acts or other misbehavior is not admissible to show a defendant's bad character or propensity to commit the charged crime . . . ." Commonwealth v. Dwyer, 448 Mass. 122, 128 (2006). Mass. G. Evid. § 404(b) (2014). Nevertheless, such evidence is admissible to prove the defendant's intent or motive, Commonwealth v. Butler, 445 Mass. 568, 574 (2005); to show the defendant's state of mind, Commonwealth v. Squailia, 429 Mass. 101, 105 (1999); and for other relevant purposes, including, here, to show his consciousness of guilt, see Commonwealth v. Miles, 420 Mass. 67, 75-76 (1995) (evidence regarding threats or intimidation admissible to show consciousness of guilty). Such evidence may also be admissible where it rebuts the defendant's contentions made at trial, Commonwealth v. Anestal, 463 Mass. 655, 665 (2012), here, the defendant's claim of self-defense. Moreover, the defendant's threats to return to the District Court and go after the court officers again could be considered an admission of the crimes charged. See Mass. G. Evid. § 801(d)(2) (2014). We accordingly discern no error in the admission of the challenged statements.
At the time of the admission of these statements, the motion for a required finding of not guilty on the indictment charging inciting a riot had not yet been allowed, and the statements were therefore properly admitted to demonstrate intent.
3. Prosecutor's closing argument. The defendant argues that eight statements in the prosecutor's closing were improper; four of the statements were objected to and four were not. Whether the statements are examined for prejudicial error or a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, our analysis yields the same result. Taken as a whole, the closing argument was, if anything, "'[e]nthusiastic rhetoric, strong advocacy, and excusable hyperbole' [which] are not grounds for reversal." Commonwealth v. Wilson, 427 Mass. 336, 350 (1998), quoting from Commonwealth v. Sanna, 424 Mass. 92, 107 (1997). The cited comments in the prosecutor's closing were fair inferences drawn from the evidence presented, including the credibility of the defendant's testimony. The defendant's contention that the Commonwealth misstated the evidence is not supported by the record. Moreover, none of the prosecutor's comments were prejudicial given the judge's cautionary instruction to the jury, which they are presumed to follow. Commonwealth v. Williams, 450 Mass. 645, 651 (2008). Finally, the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming.
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Katzmann, Sullivan & Blake, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------
Clerk Entered: March 16, 2015.