Opinion
15-P-192
03-04-2016
COMMONWEALTH v. SAMANTHA R. KNIGHT.
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
On appeal from her convictions of larceny over $250 and receiving stolen property under $250, the defendant assigns error to the admission of two statements made by the victim during her testimony. We discern no cause to disturb the convictions, and affirm.
Passing the question whether the defendant's general objection at trial was adequate to preserve her claim of error as to the victim's first statement, its admission in evidence was not error. The victim's statement that her "debit card got stolen" explained her understanding of the event giving rise to the trial. It was "(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness; (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or the determination of a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge." Commonwealth v. Canty, 466 Mass. 535, 541 (2013) (quotation omitted). See Mass. G. Evid. § 701 (2015). Of more significance, and contrary to the defendant's claim on appeal, it did not furnish an opinion regarding the culpability of the defendant, as it did not assert that the defendant was the person responsible for the theft. Compare Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 459 Mass. 422, 439 (2011). Indeed, on the basis of the other evidence at trial, the fact (much less the victim's belief) that the victim's debit card had been stolen was not in question, and the defendant even had offered to the victim a suggestion regarding a possible alternative culprit. Instead, the question at trial was whether the defendant was the person who stole the card, and on that subject the victim's statement said nothing.
The defendant's second claim of error, as to another statement by the victim, likewise is without merit because, contrary to the defendant's suggestion, the statement was not admitted in evidence. Instead, on the defendant's objection the judge sustained the objection, ordered the statement stricken, and instructed the jurors to disregard it. The defendant did not move for a mistrial, lodge any objection to the adequacy of the judge's ruling or curative instruction, or otherwise preserve any claim of error. There was no error, and we perceive no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Green, Hanlon & Henry, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: March 4, 2016.