Commonwealth v. Williams

Following his indictment for rape, the defendant was tried and convicted.1 On this appeal, his principal claims of error center on the Commonwealth’s use at trial of eight renditions of the victim’s account of events, some of which were accompanied by limiting instructions and some of which were not, and on what he claims was the trial judge’s erroneous instruction regarding consciousness of guilt. We perceive no error and therefore affirm.2

The case turned chiefly on the issue of consent and, to a far *339lesser extent, on whether penetration had occurred.3 The Commonwealth presented evidence to…