Commonwealth v. Cordeiro

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1988 · Evidence

401 Mass. 843 (1988)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceelectronic media coveragecamera coveragetrial publicityvictim protectionsubstantial likelihood of harmprejudiceextraneous influence

Facts

The jury could have found that while the victim was being assaulted near the bar, Raposo attempted to force her to perform fellatio, and after she was placed on a pool table, Cordeiro forced her to perform fellatio. During the assault on the pool table, Raposo told the crying victim to be quiet and they would let her go. Before trial, the Commonwealth moved to prohibit camera coverage of the victim, supported by the victim's affidavit describing concern for herself, her children, and the effect publicity would have on her willingness to testify. Raposo also challenged the denial of severance from Cordeiro and the ruling that a prior conviction for assault by means of a dangerous weapon could be used to impeach him if he testified.

Issue

Did the trial judge abuse his discretion or violate the defendants' fair trial rights by prohibiting camera coverage of the victim? Did the judge err in instructing the jury on mistake of fact as to consent, in refusing severance, and in allowing Raposo's prior assault conviction to be used for impeachment?

Rule

Under S.J.C. Rule 3:09, Canon 3(A)(7)(a), a judge may limit electronic media coverage if it appears that such coverage will create a substantial likelihood of harm to any person or other serious harmful consequence, and the rule is applied with broad trial-judge discretion. When such an order is within the judge's discretion, the burden remains on the defendant to show prejudice; it is not treated as an extraneous influence that shifts the burden to the Commonwealth. In rape cases, a mistake-of-fact instruction may require that the defendant reasonably and in good faith believed the victim consented. Severance is required only upon compelling prejudice, and impeachment by prior conviction is permitted when the danger of unfair prejudice does not outweigh the conviction's probative value.

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 sexual assault trial in Springfield, Massachusetts, the complainant submits a sworn affidavit stating that televised images of her testimony would likely reveal her identity to neighbors and her teenage children and would make it far harder for her to testify. The judge keeps the courtroom open to the public and print reporters but bars video recording and photography of the complainant while she is on the stand.

If the defendant argues the order is invalid because the judge did not make the kind of particularized constitutional findings required for courtroom closure, how should the appellate court rule?

Explanation. The majority distinguished limits on electronic media coverage from courtroom closure and public-access cases. Where the courtroom remains open, the judge may limit cameras under the applicable rule if it appears coverage will create a substantial likelihood of harm or other serious harmful consequence. The judge has broad discretion in making that determination, so the stricter closure-style constitutional showing is not required.