Commonwealth v. Sugrue

Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1993 · Evidence

34 Mass. App. Ct. 172 (1993)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencefresh complaintineffective assistance of counselSaferiancorroborative evidenceprejudicial evidencejury-waived trialmarital disqualification

Facts

The complainant, the defendant's young son, testified to one incident in which the defendant touched his body. Three fresh complaint witnesses then testified, without objection, that the child had reported that it happened more than once, and the trial judge also asked one witness whether she got the impression it happened more than once, eliciting an affirmative response. The defense also sought to introduce a private conversation in which the defendant threatened to seek custody of the children if the marriage ended, to show the wife's motive to lie, but the judge excluded it under G. L. c. 233, § 20. The wife had also disclosed the content of that conversation in a divorce deposition.

Issue

Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to fresh complaint testimony that went beyond the child's testimony and suggested multiple incidents of abuse. Also, whether the marital disqualification for private spousal conversations barred evidence of a conversation offered to show the wife's motive to lie, despite the defendant's constitutional rights to confrontation, cross-examination, and a fair trial.

Rule

Fresh complaint evidence is corroborative only and may not include reports of sexual misconduct beyond the incident described by the complainant; where counsel has no strategic reason for failing to object to highly prejudicial excess fresh complaint evidence, counsel's performance falls measurably below that expected of an ordinary fallible lawyer, and reversal is required if the prejudice may have affected the result. A private marital conversation otherwise barred by G. L. c. 233, § 20, must be admitted when the defendant makes a credible showing that the evidence is material and significant to the presentation of the defense and the defendant's constitutional rights outweigh the policies underlying the disqualification.

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 bench trial in Worcester, eight-year-old Maya testified that her uncle touched her inappropriately one time during a movie night. The prosecutor then called Maya's school counselor, who testified without objection that Maya said the touching had happened "a lot of times before too."

If the defendant later argues ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to object, what is the strongest analysis?

Explanation. Fresh complaint evidence is corroborative only and may not go beyond the complainant's own testimony by adding other incidents of sexual misconduct. Where counsel has no apparent strategic reason for failing to object to such highly prejudicial excess, performance falls measurably below that expected of an ordinary fallible lawyer, and reversal is warranted if the error may have affected the result. That logic applies here because the counselor's testimony added repeated prior incidents not described by Maya.