Opinion
11-P-427
03-20-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. LOUIS MASTRANGELO.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant appeals from convictions of rape of a child (two counts) and indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen (three counts), in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 23, and G. L. c. 265, § 13B, respectively. The defendant contends that the judge erroneously inquired of jurors, at empanelment, whether they would hold the Commonwealth to a burden of producing physical or scientific evidence in order to return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and thereafter excused those members of the venire who indicated that they would. We affirm.
We view this case to be controlled in all material respects by the decision and reasoning in the recent case of Commonwealth v. Perez, 460 Mass. 683 (2011). It has not been shown that the judge abused her discretion in including such questions in the voir dire of the jurors in this case. Here, as in Perez, the questions did nothing more than 'ensure that seated jurors were capable of deciding the case without bias and based on the evidence,' and in neither instance did the inquiry effectively 'commit the jury to a verdict in advance' or seat jurors 'who were predisposed to convict[ion].' Id. at 691. See Commonwealth v. Young, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 479, 485 (2009).
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Cohen, Brown & Fecteau, JJ.),