Opinion
16-P-87
05-17-2017
COMMONWEALTH v. Manuel CENTEIO.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
After a jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant, Manuel Centeio, was convicted of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. On appeal, he contends that the judge abused her discretion by admitting evidence that the defendant "grabbed a baseball bat" during a prior altercation with the victim. We affirm.
Background. At the time of trial, the victim, Carlos Pina, and the defendant had known each other for a few years. Each had had a child with Amanda Matos, and by all accounts they had a hostile relationship. At the time of the incident, the defendant and Matos were living together, and the victim went to their home. There is no dispute that after the victim's arrival the defendant slashed him across the stomach with a knife. However, the defendant claimed that the victim had repeatedly tried to incite him to fight; that the victim was the aggressor; that the victim threw rocks at him; and that he acted in self-defense when he slashed the victim. Matos testified, inter alia, that she saw the victim "running towards [the defendant] with ... a rock that seemed to look like a piece of sidewalk."
The reasons for the victim's appearance at Matos's home were disputed at trial. The victim testified that he went to the home to place money in Matos's mailbox for their child. By contrast, the defendant told the police that the victim had repeatedly called Matos's mobile and home telephones that morning, and that he (the defendant) answered the phone during one of those calls at which time the victim threatened him and advised that he was coming over to fight.
The defendant's videotaped interview with the police was played for the jury. The defendant did not testify at trial.
The judge provided self-defense instructions to the jury.
Discussion. Prior bad act testimony. The Commonwealth filed a pretrial motion in limine, which sought to elicit evidence that the defendant and the victim had engaged in a physical altercation a few years prior to the incident. The prosecutor represented that the evidence would show that the victim and the defendant had an argument; that they threw punches at each other; that the victim pushed the defendant to the ground; and that the defendant sustained a broken hand as a result. The defendant twice stated on the record that he did not object to the allowance of the motion.
Both parties filed pretrial motions in limine to admit evidence regarding the hostile nature of the relationship between the victim and the defendant. Neither party opposed the other's motion in limine.
--------
At trial, the victim testified to the prior altercation as follows: "I punched [the defendant] and then, I don't know, we start fighting, hand fight, and then he went to his car and grabbed a baseball bat." The defendant objected. The prosecutor advised that she was not "aware that that was part of the story" from her discussion with the victim. The judge advised defense counsel that she would let him cross-examine the victim on this issue, which he did at length. The defendant now contends that the admission of the reference to the baseball bat was more prejudicial than probative and constituted an abuse of discretion. We disagree.
"It is well established that the prosecution may not introduce evidence of the defendant's prior misconduct for the purpose of showing that he has a bad character or the propensity to commit the crime charged." Commonwealth v. Cruz, 456 Mass. 741, 751 (2010), citing Mass. G. Evid. § 404(a) (2010). However, "[t]his evidence may be admissible if it is relevant for some other purpose." Ibid. "A judge's decision to admit such evidence is upheld unless there is clear error." Ibid.
Here, the evidence of the prior altercation was admitted without objection and was admissible to demonstrate the hostile nature of the relationship between the parties and the defendant's state of mind. See Commonwealth v. Butler, 445 Mass. 568, 575-576 (2005) ; Commonwealth v. Julien, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 679, 686 (2003). Although the victim surprised the parties by referencing the bat, and defense counsel objected to the reference, he did not properly preserve the issue by moving to strike the testimony. See Commonwealth v. Almele, 474 Mass. 1017, 1019 (2016). Therefore, we review to determine whether the alleged error created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. Ibid. Because the testimony presented a full picture of the seriousness of the hostility between the parties, we discern no error. See Mass. G. Evid. § 404(b) (2017).
Even assuming error, we determine that it did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice for several reasons. First, defense counsel elicited on cross-examination of the victim that he allegedly told the police about the baseball bat. Defense counsel then elicited from Detective Cirino that he had interviewed the victim; that the victim told him about past problems with the defendant; that the victim did not mention anything about any baseball bat; and that had the victim disclosed such information, he would have referenced this allegation in his report. Defense counsel effectively used this information in his closing argument to attack the victim's credibility.
Second, the prosecutor did not reference the baseball bat or the prior altercation in her closing argument. To the contrary, she advised the jury that the back story between the two men was not the key issue at trial; rather, the case was about what happened on the day of the stabbing.
Third, the judge provided comprehensive limiting instructions regarding the use of prior bad act testimony at the time of the victim's testimony, and again in her final instructions. The judge's instructions were thorough and accurate, and we presume the jury followed them. See Commonwealth v. Cortez, 438 Mass. 123, 130 (2002).
Finally, the defendant's argument is further belied by the not guilty verdict on the count charging assault with intent to murder. The not guilty verdict in the face of the evidence supports the conclusion that the jury carefully weighed the evidence and held the Commonwealth to its high burden of proof. See Butler, 445 Mass. at 576.
Judgment affirmed.