DocketNumber: 18-P-93
Citation Numbers: 122 N.E.3d 1098, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 1115
Filed Date: 1/4/2019
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Matthew Graham, was found guilty of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon (a shod foot) and sentenced to eighteen months in a house of correction. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal followed by a motion for a new trial soon thereafter. His motion for a new trial, which was denied, was based on newly available evidence. The defendant then filed a timely notice of appeal following the order denying his motion. We affirm.
Background. At Graham's trial, the victim, Dreux Carroll, asserted his Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution right against self-incrimination and did not testify. At Graham's probation violation hearing in Superior Court, however, Carroll waived his Fifth Amendment right and testified as to the events concerning the night of the crime.
Discussion. 1. Standard of review. "In a motion for a new trial based on new evidence, the defendant must show that the evidence is either 'newly discovered' or 'newly available' and that it 'casts real doubt' on the justice of the defendant's conviction." Commonwealth v. Sullivan,
In reviewing a judge's denial of a motion for new trial, we determine "whether there has been a significant error of law or other abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Robideau,
2. Analysis. Graham argues that the judge abused his discretion because he relied on evidence not admissible at trial in denying the motion. The judge ultimately found that Carroll's testimony was not credible, listing seven specific reasons in his decision in support of this conclusion. Graham takes issue with the judge's reliance on medical records, the judge's conjecture regarding an unidentified woman who Carroll claimed to be with on the night of the crime, and his reliance on a security video showing Graham chasing Carroll. We will address each piece of evidence in turn.
First, we conclude that the judge's reliance on the medical records to support his conclusion that they "do not corroborate Carroll's claim of alcohol consumption" was proper. A redacted version of Carroll's medical records were agreed to and introduced at trial for the jury to consider. Graham argues that the records do not show that Carroll was sober; however, they fail to mention any alcohol consumption or intoxication of Carroll. Thus, it was proper for the judge to use these records to support Carroll's lack of credibility.
Next, we agree with the Commonwealth that the judge did not use the unknown female as one of the reasons why Carroll was not credible. Rather, while summarizing the facts and procedural history of the case, the judge stated that Carroll was not called as a witness at the hearing, nor was there an effort to locate the female that Carroll claimed to be with on the night of the crime. Accordingly, it appears that the judge was simply recounting the facts surrounding the motion for new trial, and did not consider this factor in his determination of Carroll's credibility.
Lastly, the Commonwealth concedes that it was improper for the judge to consider the surveillance video because it was excluded from trial. Having reviewed the record, we agree. However, even without this video, there was enough other admissible evidence used by the judge in making his credibility determination. The judge "properly '[took] into account his knowledge of what occurred at trial [in order to] assess questions of credibility.' " Commonwealth v. Spray,
Graham also argues that there is insufficient evidence to infer that he and Carroll are "anything but strangers." "A finder of fact may rely on common sense when analyzing the evidence and the reasonable inferences that follow." Commonwealth v. Frongillo,
In conclusion, where the motion judge was also the trial judge, we give substantial deference to his finding that Carroll was not a credible witness. The judge properly concluded that there is no substantial risk that a jury would have reached a different result if presented with Carroll's testimony.
Judgment affirmed.
Order denying motion for new trial affirmed.
Graham's probation violation was based on his conviction of the charge in this case.
A different judge presided over the probation violation hearing.