Opinion
14-P-1327
04-21-2016
COMMONWEALTH v. QUENTIN L. WILSON.
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
After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and four counts of distribution of crack cocaine, but acquitted of related school zone violations. On appeal, he claims a violation of his right against self-incrimination. We affirm.
The defendant raised three issues in his brief. The first two address an order for forfeiture of $600, which has been vacated and is therefore moot.
The defendant claims that because he pleaded not guilty in front of the jury, and then conceded the distribution charges in his testimony, he was forced to contradict himself and make himself appear dishonest and thereby violated his right against self-incrimination. We disagree. Because the defendant fails to cite any authority in support of his claim, the issue fails to rise to the level of appellate argument. See Mass.R.A.P. 16(a)(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). The argument is therefore waived. See Commonwealth v. Tracy, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 435, 442 (2000).
Even if the argument were not waived, there is no merit to the claim that his taking the stand to dispute the alleged school zone violations required self-incrimination in violation of his due process rights. When the defendant voluntarily chose to testify on his own behalf at trial, he waived those rights. See Commonwealth v. Judge, 420 Mass. 433, 445 (1995). Moreover, a defendant can defend a particular charge without necessarily incriminating himself as to others.
Finally, by conceding the distribution charges against him, the defendant did not, as alleged, negatively impact his credibility by making "contradictory" statements to the jury. To the contrary, the jury acquitted the defendant of the school zone violation charges, thereby demonstrating their careful consideration of all the evidence, including his credibility. See Commonwealth v. Delaney, 425 Mass. 587, 595 (1997). There was no error, and thus, no risk that justice miscarried.
Although the defendant initially pleaded "not guilty" to all the charges against him, his counsel effectively conceded the distribution charges in his opening statement. The defendant conceded the same in his testimony.
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Vuono, Meade & Carhart, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: April 21, 2016.