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-824
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
ROBERT R. MEDEIROS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
Following a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant
was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of
G. L. c. 265, § 15B, assault and battery in violation of G. L.
c. 265, § 13A (a), and breaking and entering in the daytime with
intent to commit a felony in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 18.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the judge erred in denying
his request to ask individual jury voir dire questions about
bias related to substance users claiming a lack of criminal
responsibility. We affirm.
Background. We summarize the facts the jury could have
found, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676- 677 (1979). In 2023, the defendant lived in an apartment
directly below the victim. On the morning of January 20, 2023,
the victim heard someone knocking "aggressive[ly]" on his door.
He looked through his peephole, and because he recognized the
defendant as his neighbor, opened the door about halfway. The
defendant "seemed very upset and agitated," accused the victim
of taking his phone and "hack[ing] into [his] Wi-Fi," pushed his
way into the apartment, and swung a knife at the victim. The
defendant tried "to stab at" the victim in "an overhand stabbing
motion with the blade facing down," and the victim testified
that if he had not held the defendant's arm, the knife probably
would have made contact with him. The victim managed to push
the defendant away from him and out of the apartment and yelled
for help. The police arrived at the scene after receiving a
report of an attempted stabbing.
The defense at trial was a lack of criminal responsibility.
The defendant's sister testified to the defendant's early use of
alcohol and other substances and that the defendant entered a
treatment program "by his early 20's." He was diagnosed with
bipolar disorder in 2003. Several months prior to the incident
on January 20, 2023, the defendant began to exhibit more signs
of "paranoia . . . getting progressively worse over time," in
particular regarding the victim. The defendant told his sister
2 that he believed the victim had installed "video cameras all
over the place," and was "coming into [the defendant's] house
. . . [and] planting devices, cameras, [and] video cameras."
One of the police officers who responded to the incident
testified that the defendant reported that the victim "had been
spying on him," and that "he hacked his Wi-Fi router, or his
phones."
Expert witnesses testified to the defendant's psychiatric
conditions and substance use disorders. The defendant regularly
took a variety of prescription medications as well as illicit
drugs. One of the psychologists testified that, in his opinion,
the defendant had a mental disease or defect that resulted in a
lack of criminal responsibility, and that the defendant could
not "think through things that he was doing," "distinguish
between what's real and what's unreal," "realize the criminality
of his actions," or "conform his actions to the requirements of
the law."
Discussion. The defendant argues that the judge's failure
to ask specific voir dire questions intended to investigate
juror bias about addiction and substance use was an abuse of
discretion and an error not cured by the jury instructions given
at the conclusion of trial.
3 General Laws c. 234A, § 67A, requires judges to ask several
categories of voir dire questions to potential jurors in
criminal cases, "including questions regarding the presumption
of innocence, the Commonwealth's burden of proof, and the
absence of any burden on the defendant." Commonwealth v.
Espinal, 482 Mass. 190, 195 n.6 (2019). Section 67A requires
additional inquiry where "it appears that . . . a decision [may]
be made in whole or in part upon issues extraneous to the case,
including, but not limited to, community attitudes, possible
exposure to potentially prejudicial material or possible
preconceived opinions toward the credibility of certain classes
of persons." Commonwealth v. Steeves, 490 Mass. 270, 285
(2022), quoting G. L. c. 234A, § 67A. However, "[a] judge has
substantial discretion in deciding what questions to ask, and
need not put the specific questions proposed by the defendant."
Commonwealth v. Pope, 392 Mass. 493, 505 (1984). "A judge need
not probe into every conceivable bias imagined by counsel."
Espinal, supra at 198.
"We review a trial judge's decisions regarding the scope of
jury voir dire for abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v.
Tejada, 484 Mass. 1, 12, cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 441 (2020).
"[A]n abuse of discretion occurs 'where we conclude the judge
made a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors relevant
4 to the decision, such that the decision falls outside the range
of reasonable alternatives.'" Espinal, 482 Mass. at 198,
quoting L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).
In deciding what individual questions would be presented to
the venire, the judge considered requests by defense counsel to
include questions designed to evaluate whether jurors were free
from bias about mental health, suicidal ideation, and substance
use. After reviewing the proposed questions, the judge included
questions regarding mental illness and expert testimony
regarding mental health disorders, and juror experiences with
suicidal ideation, but declined to include individual questions
regarding attitudes toward substance use. During individual
voir dire at sidebar, the judge made inquiry of each juror to
ensure that each would serve fairly, impartially, and
objectively, and inquired specifically regarding any opinions
about mental health that would prevent them from considering
testimony from mental health providers in a fair and impartial
manner or finding someone not guilty by reason of insanity.
While defense counsel argued that additional, specific voir dire
questioning was necessary "to establish whether [the jurors]
genuinely underst[ood] that somebody can suffer from both a
mental disease or defect and a substance-use disorder," and
because "there are some people who might have a bias . . . that
5 if you use drugs, that is a moral failing," defense counsel did
not provide any evidence beyond her own conjecture and opinion
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-824
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
ROBERT R. MEDEIROS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
Following a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant
was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of
G. L. c. 265, § 15B, assault and battery in violation of G. L.
c. 265, § 13A (a), and breaking and entering in the daytime with
intent to commit a felony in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 18.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the judge erred in denying
his request to ask individual jury voir dire questions about
bias related to substance users claiming a lack of criminal
responsibility. We affirm.
Background. We summarize the facts the jury could have
found, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676- 677 (1979). In 2023, the defendant lived in an apartment
directly below the victim. On the morning of January 20, 2023,
the victim heard someone knocking "aggressive[ly]" on his door.
He looked through his peephole, and because he recognized the
defendant as his neighbor, opened the door about halfway. The
defendant "seemed very upset and agitated," accused the victim
of taking his phone and "hack[ing] into [his] Wi-Fi," pushed his
way into the apartment, and swung a knife at the victim. The
defendant tried "to stab at" the victim in "an overhand stabbing
motion with the blade facing down," and the victim testified
that if he had not held the defendant's arm, the knife probably
would have made contact with him. The victim managed to push
the defendant away from him and out of the apartment and yelled
for help. The police arrived at the scene after receiving a
report of an attempted stabbing.
The defense at trial was a lack of criminal responsibility.
The defendant's sister testified to the defendant's early use of
alcohol and other substances and that the defendant entered a
treatment program "by his early 20's." He was diagnosed with
bipolar disorder in 2003. Several months prior to the incident
on January 20, 2023, the defendant began to exhibit more signs
of "paranoia . . . getting progressively worse over time," in
particular regarding the victim. The defendant told his sister
2 that he believed the victim had installed "video cameras all
over the place," and was "coming into [the defendant's] house
. . . [and] planting devices, cameras, [and] video cameras."
One of the police officers who responded to the incident
testified that the defendant reported that the victim "had been
spying on him," and that "he hacked his Wi-Fi router, or his
phones."
Expert witnesses testified to the defendant's psychiatric
conditions and substance use disorders. The defendant regularly
took a variety of prescription medications as well as illicit
drugs. One of the psychologists testified that, in his opinion,
the defendant had a mental disease or defect that resulted in a
lack of criminal responsibility, and that the defendant could
not "think through things that he was doing," "distinguish
between what's real and what's unreal," "realize the criminality
of his actions," or "conform his actions to the requirements of
the law."
Discussion. The defendant argues that the judge's failure
to ask specific voir dire questions intended to investigate
juror bias about addiction and substance use was an abuse of
discretion and an error not cured by the jury instructions given
at the conclusion of trial.
3 General Laws c. 234A, § 67A, requires judges to ask several
categories of voir dire questions to potential jurors in
criminal cases, "including questions regarding the presumption
of innocence, the Commonwealth's burden of proof, and the
absence of any burden on the defendant." Commonwealth v.
Espinal, 482 Mass. 190, 195 n.6 (2019). Section 67A requires
additional inquiry where "it appears that . . . a decision [may]
be made in whole or in part upon issues extraneous to the case,
including, but not limited to, community attitudes, possible
exposure to potentially prejudicial material or possible
preconceived opinions toward the credibility of certain classes
of persons." Commonwealth v. Steeves, 490 Mass. 270, 285
(2022), quoting G. L. c. 234A, § 67A. However, "[a] judge has
substantial discretion in deciding what questions to ask, and
need not put the specific questions proposed by the defendant."
Commonwealth v. Pope, 392 Mass. 493, 505 (1984). "A judge need
not probe into every conceivable bias imagined by counsel."
Espinal, supra at 198.
"We review a trial judge's decisions regarding the scope of
jury voir dire for abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v.
Tejada, 484 Mass. 1, 12, cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 441 (2020).
"[A]n abuse of discretion occurs 'where we conclude the judge
made a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors relevant
4 to the decision, such that the decision falls outside the range
of reasonable alternatives.'" Espinal, 482 Mass. at 198,
quoting L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).
In deciding what individual questions would be presented to
the venire, the judge considered requests by defense counsel to
include questions designed to evaluate whether jurors were free
from bias about mental health, suicidal ideation, and substance
use. After reviewing the proposed questions, the judge included
questions regarding mental illness and expert testimony
regarding mental health disorders, and juror experiences with
suicidal ideation, but declined to include individual questions
regarding attitudes toward substance use. During individual
voir dire at sidebar, the judge made inquiry of each juror to
ensure that each would serve fairly, impartially, and
objectively, and inquired specifically regarding any opinions
about mental health that would prevent them from considering
testimony from mental health providers in a fair and impartial
manner or finding someone not guilty by reason of insanity.
While defense counsel argued that additional, specific voir dire
questioning was necessary "to establish whether [the jurors]
genuinely underst[ood] that somebody can suffer from both a
mental disease or defect and a substance-use disorder," and
because "there are some people who might have a bias . . . that
5 if you use drugs, that is a moral failing," defense counsel did
not provide any evidence beyond her own conjecture and opinion
to support this contention when asked by the judge. "A
defendant's 'bare allegation' that there exists a 'widespread
belief' that could result in bias is not sufficient to cause us
to conclude that the judge abused his discretion by declining to
conduct voir dire on the issue." Espinal, 482 Mass. at 200.
In addition to the voir dire questioning that included
specific questions designed to establish that the jurors could
fairly and impartially assess the defendant's claim that he
lacked criminal responsibility, the jury instruction of criminal
responsibility included an explanation of the interplay between
mental health, voluntary substance use, and criminal
responsibility, and set out what was required for the
Commonwealth to meet its burden and for the jury to determine if
the defendant was criminally responsible. Moreover, the
defendant makes no challenge to the correctness or completeness
of the judge's detailed instructions. We conclude that the
judge properly "inquire[d] individually of each potential juror,
. . . whether the juror ha[d] any opinion that would prevent him
or her from returning a verdict of not guilty by reason of
insanity, if the Commonwealth fails in its burden to prove the
defendant criminally responsible," Commonwealth v. Seguin, 421
6 Mass. 243, 249 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1180 (1996),
properly instructed the jury on the issues of substance use and
its relation to criminal responsibility, and did not abuse his
discretion in declining to ask the specific voir dire questions
requested by the defendant.
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Massing, Sacks & Allen, JJ.1),
Clerk
Entered: January 13, 2026.
1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.