Commonwealth v. Florangel Castro.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-1167
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as 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 23.0 or 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).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

24-P-1167

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

FLORANGEL CASTRO.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Following a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant

was convicted of assault and battery as a lesser included

offense of the charged crime of assault and battery by means of

a dangerous weapon. On appeal, the defendant argues that the

judge erred in admitting at trial (1) an eleven second

audiovisual recording of the altercation and (2) the victim's

testimony regarding the defendant's brother's arrest.

Discerning no error in the admission of this evidence, we

affirm.

Background. 1. The Commonwealth's case. On the afternoon

of June 20, 2021, the victim and her boyfriend got in an

altercation in their apartment, causing the victim's daughter to call the police. The police arrived, arrested the boyfriend,

and removed him from the apartment, leaving the victim alone

with her two daughters. About twenty minutes later, the

defendant entered the back door of the apartment, along with

three of her children, demanding that the victim "[g]et the F

out of her house."1 The victim said that it was her house and

that the defendant should get out. The defendant said, "This is

why my brother doesn't like you," and punched the victim in the

face.2

The defendant and the victim then got in a physical fight

with their children looking on, screaming and crying. As the

women "tussled" their way out the back door, the defendant

grabbed a porcelain pumpkin from the entryway and hit the victim

in the head with it, slicing the victim's arms with the broken

shards. The victim then tripped and fell to the ground outside.

The defendant got on top of the victim, who yelled for her

daughter to call 911. The victim eventually got out from

underneath the defendant, police and fire personnel arrived, and

the victim was taken to the hospital.

1 The apartment was leased to the defendant's mother, who ordinarily lived there but was out of country at the time.

2 The defendant's brother was the victim's boyfriend.

2 2. The defendant's case. The defendant put forward a

self-defense theory through the testimony of her thirteen year

old daughter and herself.

According to the defendant, she learned about a problem

between her brother and the victim and then, on her mother's

instructions to check on the situation, she entered the victim's

apartment unannounced. An argument ensued, after which the

victim grabbed the defendant by the neck. The defendant freed

herself and tried to leave, but the victim went outside and held

the door, trapping the defendant inside. As the defendant tried

to get through the door, the victim began throwing things,

including ice skates, at the defendant. The defendant was

eventually able to push her way out, causing the victim to fall.

The defendant then got on top of the victim in order to calm her

down.

Although the defendant admitted that she might have grabbed

a ceramic pumpkin during the struggle, she denied hitting the

victim with it. She could not recall having punched the victim

while inside and denied having punched, kicked, or hit the

victim outside.

Discussion. 1. Eleven second audiovisual recording. At

trial, the Commonwealth played an eleven second audiovisual

recording (recording), depicting the altercation that spilled

3 out of the apartment. The defendant had agreed to admission of

the recording but objected to admission of the audio from the

recording on the ground that "[w]e don't know who's talking or

what's going on" and because it was made without the permission

of the people who were recorded and so amounted to a possible

wiretap violation. The judge overruled these objections and

admitted the recording with both the video and audio components.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the entire recording should

have been excluded.3

We review a trial judge's evidentiary rulings for an abuse

of discretion, such that we will not disturb the judge's

decision absent a clear error of judgment in weighing the

relevant factors. See Commonwealth v. Ng, 491 Mass. 247, 257

(2023). In general, relevant evidence is admissible. See

Commonwealth v. Correia, 492 Mass. 220, 227-228 (2023); Mass. G.

Evid. § 402 (2025). But relevant evidence may be excluded if

its probative value is substantially outweighed by certain

dangers, including unfair prejudice, confusion of issues,

3 The parties agree that the defendant's claim as to admission of the video portion of the recording was not preserved but dispute whether the claim as to the audio was preserved. Whether reviewed for prejudicial error for a preserved claim or substantial risk of miscarriage of justice for an unpreserved claim, the outcome is the same as we conclude that there was no error. See Commonwealth v. Upton U., 59 Mass. App. Ct. 252, 255 n.3 (2003) (no need to determine appropriate standard of review where there is no error).

4 misleading jury, consuming time unnecessarily, or presenting

cumulative evidence. See Commonwealth v. Spencer, 465 Mass. 32,

48 (2013); Mass. G. Evid. § 403 (2025).

Here, there is no claim that the recording depicting the

crime was irrelevant; rather the claim is that the probative

value of the recording was weak and was substantially outweighed

by (1) the fact that it was unnecessarily cumulative of other

video recordings already admitted in evidence, (2) its tendency

to mislead because it showed only the end of the entire event

and (3) unfair prejudice caused by its "emotionally charged" and

"highly inflammatory" nature. We do not agree.

First, although the recording was cumulative of some of the

evidence at trial, including surveillance footage taken from a

distance, it depicted a more close-up view of the events that

took place outside the house than the other video evidence did.

Contrast Commonwealth v. Adams, 495 Mass. 600, 605 (2025).

Second, while the recording only documented the end of the

altercation, no one disputed the fact that it began inside, and

the jury was unlikely to have been misled. Contrast

Commonwealth v. Mattei, 455 Mass. 840, 852 (2010). Third, the

recording showed an emotional scene, but we are not persuaded

that it was "highly inflammatory," as the defendant suggests.

See Commonwealth v. Bell, 473 Mass. 131, 142-145 (2015).

5 Compare Commonwealth v. Huang, 489 Mass. 162, 175 (2022),

quoting Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 419 Mass. 350, 354 (1995)

("gruesome" postmortem photographs of victim not inadmissible

"solely because they . . . may have an inflammatory effect on

the jury"), with Commonwealth v. Carey, 463 Mass. 378, 391

(2012) (video recording of nude woman being fatally strangled

was "highly inflammatory").

On the other hand, the probative value of the recording was

strong. Contrary to the defendant's claim, it did shed light on

a key issue in the case -- whether the defendant was the first

aggressor or acted in self-defense. Although the recording did

not capture the beginning of the altercation and so did not show

how the fight began, it did provide evidence the jury could use

in determining whether the Commonwealth met its burden of

disproving that the defendant was acting in self-defense when

she fought with the victim outside the apartment. See

Commonwealth v. Fayad F., 495 Mass. 266, 275-276 (2025) (where

evidence raises question of self-defense, Commonwealth bears

burden of disproving defendant acted in self-defense).

Specifically, it was some evidence of whether the defendant

reasonably believed that her safety was in danger, did

everything reasonable to avoid combat, and used only that degree

of force necessary to defend herself. See Commonwealth v. King,

6 460 Mass. 80, 83 (2011). See also Commonwealth v. Jaime, 433

Mass. 575, 579 (2001) (fact that evidence goes to central issue

weighs in favor of admission).

The recording also allowed the jury to assess the

credibility of the witnesses by permitting them to compare the

recording with witness testimony that, for example, the

defendant "had [the victim] by her hair" and punched down at the

victim, and that the victim kicked up at the defendant, and

called for her daughter to get help. See Commonwealth v.

Emence, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 299, 301-302 (1999) (error to exclude

evidence tending to corroborate witness testimony where

credibility of critical importance). The recording was highly

probative.

Given the strong probative value of the recording, the

judge was well within her discretion in determining that its

probative value was not substantially outweighed by any danger

of needless presentation of cumulative evidence, misleading the

jury, or undue prejudice.4

4 The defendant argues that the prejudice flowing from the recording was exacerbated by the admission into evidence of a still image from the recording, showing the defendant standing over the victim on the ground. The exhibit, like the video portion of the recording, went in without objection. As with the video portion of the recording, we discern no substantial risk of miscarriage of justice from the admission of the still image.

7 2. Defendant's brother's arrest. The defendant argues

that the judge erred in admitting the victim's testimony that

her boyfriend, the defendant's brother, was arrested shortly

before the defendant confronted the victim in her home. Where

the issue was not preserved below,5 our review is limited to

whether there was any error, and if so, whether that error

created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. See

Commonwealth v. Alphas, 430 Mass. 8, 13 (1999); Commonwealth v.

Johnson, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 195, 202 (2023).

The defendant first contends that the evidence was not

relevant to any issue in the case. However, the earlier

altercation between the victim and her boyfriend resulting in

the defendant's brother's arrest and removal from the apartment

(one that was leased to the defendant's mother), provided a

motive and context for the crime which took place twenty minutes

later. See Commonwealth v. Mendes, 441 Mass. 459, 464-465

(2004) (motive evidence generally admissible and relevant to

place crime in context).

5 The prosecutor mentioned the arrest in opening without objection. Defense counsel did object when the victim mentioned the arrest in her direct testimony, but his stated purpose was to question the level of detail the victim would go into about the incident with the boyfriend. The judge allowed the questioning to continue but invited counsel to "object as we go along." Immediately thereafter, the prosecutor elicited testimony that the defendant was placed under arrested and taken away to the police station. Defense counsel did not object.

8 The defendant argues, however, that the evidence could only

be relevant to motive if the defendant knew about the arrest,

and that there is no evidence that the defendant was aware of

it. Whether or not the defendant was aware of her brother's

arrest, there was abundant evidence that the defendant was aware

of a "problem" between the victim and her boyfriend, serious

enough that her brother called her about it and her mother, who

was out of country, directed her to eject the victim from the

apartment.

Even so, the defendant argues that the probative value of

the arrest itself was substantially outweighed by its undue

prejudicial effect on the defendant's case. She contends that

the fact of the arrest had the tendency to "taint" her with

"guilt by association," and to bolster the victim's credibility

by suggesting police support of her claim. Arguably, the fact

of the defendant's brother's arrest was no more prejudicial to

the defendant than evidence of the earlier altercation, which

was characterized as "domestic violence." Moreover, the

Commonwealth's case was strong, particularly in light of

contemporaneous audiovisual evidence of the crime in progress.

Even if the fact of the arrest had been erroneously admitted,

there is no serious doubt that the trial result would not have

been different. See Commonwealth v. Desiderio, 491 Mass. 809,

9 815-816 (2023) (discussing factors to consider in substantial

risk of miscarriage of justice review on unpreserved error).

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Neyman, Singh & Hand, JJ.6),

Clerk

Entered: August 28, 2025.

6 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.