Commonwealth v. Tardy

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Tardy

790 N.E.2d 645, 439 Mass. 1011, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 460

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 26, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 790 N.E.2d 645 (Commonwealth v. Tardy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Tardy, 790 N.E.2d 645, 439 Mass. 1011, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 460 (Mass. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Following a trial by jury, the defendant was convicted of three counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen years. G. L. c. 265, § 13B. The Appeals Court, in an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to its rule 1:28, affirmed the convictions. Commonwealth v. Tardy, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 1109 (2002). We then granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review. We agree with the reasoning and result of the Appeals Court. The judge, based on the voir dire testimony of the victim and her mother, did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s motion in limine seeking to exclude fresh complaint testimony; the fact that the testimony as it developed at trial suggested that more time may have passed [1012]*1012between the alleged offenses and the time of the fresh complaint than the voir dire testimony had initially indicated does not, on the facts of this case, constitute a ground for reversal.

Timothy M. Farris for the defendant. Sidney E. Reavey, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgments affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Following a trial by jury, the defendant was convicted of three counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen years. G. L. c. 265, § 13B. The Appeals Court, in an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to its rule 1:28, affirmed the convictions. Commonwealth v. Tardy, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 1109 (2002). We then granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review. We agree with the reasoning and result of the Appeals Court. The judge, based on the voir dire testimony of the victim and her mother, did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s motion in limine seeking to exclude fresh complaint testimony; the fact that the testimony as it developed at trial suggested that more time may have passed [1012]*1012between the alleged offenses and the time of the fresh complaint than the voir dire testimony had initially indicated does not, on the facts of this case, constitute a ground for reversal.

Timothy M. Farris for the defendant. Sidney E. Reavey, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

790 N.E.2d 645, 439 Mass. 1011, 2003 Mass. LEXIS 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-tardy-mass-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack