Commonwealth v. Quincy Q.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1DissentIreland, J.
(dissenting, with whom Spina and Sosman, JJ., join). While I concur with the court’s interpretation of the youthful offender statute, I write separately with regard to two evidentiary matters. In my opinion, neither the admission of the fresh complaint videotape nor the father’s allegedly “vouching” testimony constituted an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion.
1. The “Fresh Complaint” Videotape.
As the court explains, ante at 867, the prosecution sought to introduce a videotape for the limited purpose of corroborating the complainant’s claims. Recorded by the complainant’s parents, the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LicataMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
- Commonwealth v. DockhamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
- Commonwealth v. WheltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
- Commonwealth v. LavalleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Commonwealth v. PetersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.