Commonwealth v. Mayotte

by
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape of a child, incest, and related sex offenses. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant’s conviction for reckless endangerment and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge erred in ruling that Defendant’s first complaint evidence relating to her defense that she was the victim of rape by the complainant was inadmissible as a matter of law, but Defendant was not prejudiced by the error; (2) the trial judge did not err in excluding a statement proffered as evidence of the victim’s state of mind; (3) there was insufficient evidence to prove reckless endangerment based on “serious bodily injury”; and (4) notwithstanding any impropriety in the prosecutor’s sentencing remarks, there was no basis to conclude that the judge was influenced by those remarks, and therefore, resentencing was not necessary. View "Commonwealth v. Mayotte" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

Comments are closed.