Commonwealth v. Guisti

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 2001 · Evidence

434 Mass. 245 (2001)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceJuror misconductExtraneous influenceRelevanceexpert testimonyrapeconsentvictim fear

Facts

At trial, the defendant sought to present an emergency room physician to testify that his self-inflicted wounds showed a serious suicide attempt, which he argued supported his claim that he intended only to kill himself and that the victim consented to intercourse to stop him from doing so. The judge excluded the testimony as irrelevant. After the verdicts, defense counsel learned that during trial a juror had posted on an internet mailing list that she was stuck on a rape/assault case and wrote, "Just say he's guilty and lets get on with our lives!" She later said she was joking, but she apparently received at least two responses to her postings.

Issue

Whether the trial judge erred by excluding expert testimony that the defendant's wounds indicated a serious suicide attempt, and whether the judge erred by denying a postverdict voir dire of a juror who posted comments about the case online and may have received responses. Also, whether the juror's statement itself required inquiry for bias.

Rule

Evidence is relevant only if it has a rational tendency to prove a material issue and is not too remote or speculative; in a rape case, evidence that a defendant genuinely intended suicide is irrelevant if it does not bear on whether the victim consented or reasonably feared bodily injury. A trial judge need not conduct a postverdict juror inquiry unless the defendant makes a colorable showing that extraneous matters may have affected impartiality; a juror's own comment about guilt is not an extraneous matter, but outside responses to a juror's communications may be. If exposure to extraneous matter is shown, the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not prejudiced, judged by the probable effect on a hypothetical average jury rather than actual effect on the juror.

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 rape trial in Worcester, Daniel Mercer testifies that he cut his own chest with a box cutter during an argument and only wanted to die. He offers a trauma surgeon to testify that the depth and angle of the wounds show a genuine, high-risk suicide attempt, arguing this makes it more likely that Nina Flores agreed to sex to calm him down.

Should the judge admit the surgeon's testimony?

Explanation. Relevant evidence must have a rational tendency to prove a material issue and cannot be too remote or speculative. In a rape case, the material issues are consent and whether intercourse was compelled by force or threat. Evidence that the defendant truly intended to kill himself may coexist with an intent to frighten or harm the complainant, so it does not bear on whether the complainant consented or reasonably feared bodily injury. The testimony is therefore irrelevant on that issue.