Commonwealth v. Tyler

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Tyler

346 N.E.2d 138, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 804, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 591

DecidedApril 28, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 346 N.E.2d 138 (Commonwealth v. Tyler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Tyler, 346 N.E.2d 138, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 804, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 591 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant was tried to a jury for rape and related offenses arising from the same incident. There is no substance to the defendant’s claim of impropriety in remarks made by the assistant district attorney in closing argument in which the latter referred to the “story” told to the police by the rape victim on the evening of the day of the incident. The record makes clear, contrary to the defendant’s assertions, (1) that the assistant district attorney was not thereby asserting that the victim had made a “fresh complaint” to the police, and (2) that there was an abundance of evidence, admitted without objection from the defendant, to support the prosecutor’s remarks. Moreover, the judge properly instructed the jury on the only evidence of fresh complaint asserted by the Commonwealth, which had also been introduced without objection, through the [805]*805testimony of both the victim and an individual to whom she had talked directly following the incident.

The case was submitted on briefs. Daniel F. Toomey for the defendant. John J. Droney, District Attorney, Alan Kovacs, Bonnie H. MacLeod-Griffin, & Harry C. Mezer, Assistant District Attorneys, for the Commonwealth.

Judgments affirmed.

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

The defendant was tried to a jury for rape and related offenses arising from the same incident. There is no substance to the defendant’s claim of impropriety in remarks made by the assistant district attorney in closing argument in which the latter referred to the “story” told to the police by the rape victim on the evening of the day of the incident. The record makes clear, contrary to the defendant’s assertions, (1) that the assistant district attorney was not thereby asserting that the victim had made a “fresh complaint” to the police, and (2) that there was an abundance of evidence, admitted without objection from the defendant, to support the prosecutor’s remarks. Moreover, the judge properly instructed the jury on the only evidence of fresh complaint asserted by the Commonwealth, which had also been introduced without objection, through the [805]*805testimony of both the victim and an individual to whom she had talked directly following the incident.

The case was submitted on briefs. Daniel F. Toomey for the defendant. John J. Droney, District Attorney, Alan Kovacs, Bonnie H. MacLeod-Griffin, & Harry C. Mezer, Assistant District Attorneys, for the Commonwealth.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 N.E.2d 138, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 804, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-tyler-massappct-1976.