Opinion
10-P-499
10-06-2011
COMMONWEALTH v. TRENT T., a juvenile.
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 question presented is whether the testimony of the probation officer who conducted the juvenile's intake interview could properly be admitted to establish the juvenile's age at the time of the offense. The Commonwealth offered the subject testimony to provide an element of proof for a youthful offender adjudication.
On the youthful offender indictment, the juvenile was convicted of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. He was also adjudicated delinquent on two additional charges. He appeals from the youthful offender conviction.
We have little difficulty concluding in the circumstances presented here the probation officer could permissibly provide the testimony challenged on appeal. The information at issue here -- the defendant's age -- was not gained in response to the completion of an indigency report. See and compare Commonwealth v. Bandy, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 329, 332-335 (1995). Cf. Commonwealth v. White, 422 Mass. 487, 501 (1996); Commonwealth v. Maylott, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 516, 520-521 (1997).
The judge was well within her permissible discretion to permit testimony from a belatedly disclosed witness. See Commonwealth v. Trapp, 423 Mass. 356, 363-364, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996). Moreover, there has been no showing on this record that the Commonwealth acted in bad faith or that the juvenile was prejudiced by the late disclosure.
Likewise, the judge would have been well within her discretion to deny a continuance, if the juvenile had sought one.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Trainor, Brown & Carhart, JJ.),