Commonwealth v. Ascolillo

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Criminal Law

Criminal LawJury SelectionEvidenceRapeConsentchallenge for causejuror indifferencepolice officer juror

Facts

The victim testified that after drinking alcohol and using some cocaine at the defendant's house, she followed him into a back room, where he forced her onto a sofa bed, threatened to kill her, grabbed a small knife from a nearby cabinet, cut her finger when she pushed it away, and forced sexual acts on her. Police later observed scratches on her neck, a cut finger, torn clothing, and seized a blood-stained sheet and pillowcase from the sofa bed area, along with seven small pocket knives on a nearby shelf. The defendant testified that the sexual activity was consensual, that he and the victim had prior sexual encounters in exchange for cocaine, and that she became enraged after he refused to give her more cocaine. During jury selection, the judge declined to excuse for cause a Melrose police sergeant who said his police work and prior assault experience would not affect his impartiality.

Issue

Whether the trial judge erred by refusing to excuse a police officer juror for cause, by admitting seven small knives found near the sofa bed, and by instructing the jury on consent and intoxication while refusing to give a requested instruction that the defendant should be acquitted if he reasonably and in good faith believed the victim consented.

Rule

A trial judge's finding that a juror stands indifferent will not be disturbed absent a showing of manifest prejudice or a substantial risk that the case was decided on extraneous issues; occupation alone, including service as a police officer, is insufficient to require removal for cause. Evidence that the defendant possessed an instrument capable of being used in the commission of the charged crime is admissible in the judge's discretion even without direct proof that it was the actual instrument used. In rape cases, the Commonwealth is not required to prove that the defendant lacked an honest and reasonable belief in consent, and the jury may consider evidence of the complainant's intoxication on the issue of capacity to consent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a robbery trial in Boston, a prospective juror discloses that she has worked for 18 years as a patrol officer in Quincy. When the judge asks whether her law-enforcement work would affect her ability to decide the case fairly, she says no, and nothing suggests she knows any witness or has any connection to the investigation.

Should the judge excuse the juror for cause?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that a trial judge's finding that a juror stands indifferent is given substantial deference. Mere occupation as a police officer, without affirmative evidence of prejudice, partiality, or connection to the particular facts at trial, is insufficient to require removal for cause. The juror stated she could be fair, and nothing in the hypothetical shows manifest juror prejudice or a substantial risk the case would be decided on extraneous issues. (Derived from Commonwealth v. Ascolillo (n.d.).)