Commonwealth v. Bazirake
Opinion
The defendant was convicted of indecent assault and battery on a person fourteen years of age or older in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13H. On appeal he argues only that the admission at trial of the recordings of two telephone calls between the defendant and a private citizen, the roommate of the victim, was prejudicial error.
We may assume without deciding that these recordings, made by the victim's roommate without the knowledge or consent of the defendant, were made in violation of G. L. c. 272, § 99. The defendant's only argument is that because these recordings were made in violation of the statute and were harmful because they may well have been relied upon by the jury, the judge was required to exclude them. Our case law is clear, however, that when a private individual makes such an unlawful recording and there was no police involvement of any kind in the creation of the recording, nor any knowledge by the police that the telephone call was being recorded, its exclusion at a criminal trial is not required. See Commonwealth v. Barboza,
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
122 N.E.3d 1098 (Commonwealth v. Bazirake) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.