COMMONWEALTH v. GOODROW (2019)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The defendant, Clayton J. Goodrow, was charged by complaint with assault and battery against two different individuals: Sandra Bennett and Pete Johnson. A jury convicted the defendant of the charge against Johnson and acquitted him of the charge against Bennett. On appeal, the defendant relies on Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 469 (2005), in arguing that the judge abused his discretion by excluding evidence that during an altercation two days earlier and at the same location Johnson swung a beer bottle at him. We affirm.

The charges against the defendant arose from an altercation that occurred at around 10:30 p.m. on June 25, 2017, at the apartment complex where the defendant lived. On that evening, the defendant was hosting a guest. The guest's baby was running a high temperature. The defendant, his guest, and others were congregating outside when a dispute arose about whether the baby should be taken to the emergency room. The Commonwealth's case was that the defendant pushed Bennett to the ground for criticizing his guest for not bringing her baby to the hospital and then attacked Johnson when he tried to help Bennett up from the ground. The defendant testified and claimed that he did not shove Bennett and instead was helping her off the ground. The defendant also testified that as he tried to help Bennett, he was attacked by Johnson. A fight then ensued between the defendant and Johnson, resulting in both men being transported to the hospital where they each received stiches. The defendant denied that he struck Johnson first.

Prior to trial, the defendant moved in limine to admit evidence of a prior altercation that occurred between him and Johnson two days earlier at the same apartment complex. In particular, he wanted to admit evidence that Johnson had swung a beer bottle at him during this prior altercation. The incident was recorded in a Hatfield Police Department report. The report indicated that the property manager was alerted by another tenant that the defendant and Johnson were fighting and subsequently called the police. Upon arrival of both State and local police, the property manager explained that he had looked out the window and “could see them throwing punches at each other and it looked like [Johnson] was swinging a beer bottle at [the defendant].” Johnson was interviewed by a State Police trooper and explained “that it was [the defendant] swinging the bottle.”² According to the report, both parties were advised of their rights to file charges through the courts and declined. The officers determined the parties should be separated so that they could each “cool down” and, as Johnson did not live at the apartment complex, he was told to leave. On the morning of trial, the judge heard argument on the motion in limine and denied it without prejudice. He later denied the motion with prejudice stating the “[e]vidence has been sufficiently unpacked that the court now denies this motion with prejudice.”³

Where a claim of self-defense is asserted and the identity of the first aggressor is in dispute, “trial judges have the discretion to admit in evidence specific incidents of violence that the victim is reasonably alleged to have initiated.” Adjutant, 443 Mass. at 650. See Mass. G. Evid. § 404(a)(2)(B) (2019). However, “[i]t is for the trial judge to evaluate the proffered evidence's probative value and admit so much of that evidence as is noncumulative and relevant to the defendant's self-defense claim.” Id. at 663. “[D]ecisions of trial judges to admit or exclude such evidence, as with many evidentiary rulings, will be upheld unless we find an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 663 n.18.

We discern no abuse of discretion. The evidence about who the initial aggressor was and what occurred in the earlier fight was unclear and in dispute. Contrary to the defendant's claim, the evidence of the earlier fight between Johnson and the defendant did not establish that it was reasonably likely that Johnson was the first aggressor. Although admission of evidence that during an earlier encounter Johnson had swung a beer bottle at the defendant might have been helpful to the defendant's case if that evidence had been admitted, it would have opened the door for the Commonwealth to rebut it with either testimony from Johnson or otherwise with information in the same police report that the defendant was the one who had been swinging the beer bottle at Johnson. The judge did not abuse his considerable discretion in declining to permit this marginally relevant and potentially confusing evidence. See Adjutant, 443 Mass. at 663 (“We are persuaded that the sound discretion of trial judges to exclude marginally relevant or grossly prejudicial evidence can prevent the undue exploration of collateral issues”).

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   There were some confirming circumstances to corroborate each version of events. A sergeant from the Hatfield Police Department observed Johnson to be drinking a beer from a bottle but not the defendant. However, Johnson explained that the defendant had been swinging the bottle “and that that it got dumped on his girlfriend.” The sergeant observed the girlfriend's shirt to be wet but did not know if it was beer.

3.   Although the judge denied the motion in limine, Johnson testified about “an incident” with the defendant two days prior. The incident was described as an altercation, and Johnson admitted that he was asked to leave the premises.