Commonwealth v. Trapp (1985)

Trapp was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and larceny of a motor vehicle, id. at 163, but the conviction was overturned on appeal because improper character evidence had been admitted at trial, id. at 165.

In Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 214 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996), we declared, “We need not decide whether such a substitution is reversible error because the defendant did not object to the substitution of judges at the time, nor did he claim dissatisfaction with the answers given to the jury by the first substitute judge.” Here, the defendant objected to the instruction provided by the substitute judge to the supplemental questi…

Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

See also Commonwealth v. Drew, 397 Mass. 65, 79 (1986), S.C., 447 Mass. 635 (2006), quoting Commonwealth v. Bradshaw, 385 Mass. 244, 269 (1982) (prosecution may not introduce evidence that defendant previously misbehaved for purpose of showing his or her bad character or propensity to commit crime charged, but such evidence may be admissible if “relevant for some other purpose”); Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985) (prior bad act admissible where it is not offer…

Commonwealth v. Triplett, 398 Mass. 561, 562 (1986), quoting Commonwealth v. Helfant, 398 Mass. 214, 224 (1986); Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 202 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996), and cases cited.

Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 213 , 485 N.E.2d 162, 169 (1985), the Massachusetts Supreme Court discussed appropriate substitution of judges and explained that it is a matter “of grave concern to the proper administration of justice.” In that case, the judge who had presided over the trial had been “absent” during jury deliberations, a substitute judge had taken questions from the jury and answered them, and a second substitute judge had taken the jury’…

Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 207 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996).

“It is a fundamental rule that the prosecution may not introduce evidence that a defendant previously has misbehaved, indictably or not, for the purpose of showing his bad character or propensity to commit the crime charged.” Commonwealth v. Baker, 440 Mass. 519, 529 (2003), quoting from Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996).

L. c. 233, § 78; Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 208 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356 , cert, denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996).

Commonwealth v. Baker, 440 Mass. 519, 529, 530 (2003), quoting Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356 , cert, denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996).

Evidence of prior bad acts may not be used to show bad character or propensity to commit the crime charged, Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), cert, denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1986), but such evidence may be admitted to show “a common scheme, pattern of operation, absence of accident or mistake, identity, intent or motive.” Commonwealth v. Helfant, 398 Mass. 214, 224 (1986).

Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

It may be proper to admit “evidence of other bad acts when that evidence relates to a subsidiary issue . . . and is not offered to prove his guilt but rather to prove a relevant subsidiary fact.” Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

Id. at 842 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996).

“It is a fundamental rule that the prosecution may not introduce evidence that a defendant previously has misbehaved, indictably or not, for the purpose of showing his bad character or propensity to commit the crime charged.” Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996).

“It is a fundamental rule that the prosecution may not introduce evidence that a defendant previously has misbehaved, indictably or not, for the purpose of showing his bad character or propensity to commit the crime charged.” Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356 , cert, denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996).

The defendant timely objected, and now argues that the evidence was not probative of a specific intent to kill the victim, but rather was a general statement of animosity toward a group of people, and as such constituted inadmissible character evidence, namely, that the defendant was a killer and that he had a general disposition to kill, citing Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356 , cert, denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996).

Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 207 (1985).

Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 208-210 (1985).

Before evidence of a prior bad act can be admitted, the trial court must find that (1) the evidence is directed toward establishing a matter in issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged, see Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985); (2) the jury could reasonably conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused committed the other crime, Commonwealth v. Leonard, 428 Mass. 782, 785-786 (1999), and cases cited; (3) the evidence …

Evidence is relevant which “relates to a subsidiary issue, such as the state of mind of the defendant, and is not offered to prove his guilt but rather to prove a relevant subsidiary fact.” Commonwealth v. Triplett, 398 Mass. at 562 , quoting from Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996).

Evidence of prior convictions may not be admitted as evidence of a propensity to commit a crime, see Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996), but may be admitted to impeach the defendant’s credibility as a witness, so long as its prejudicial effect does not outweigh its probative value.

To be sure, evidence of prior bad acts may not be received to show the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged, Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985); Commonwealth v. Chartier, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 758, 760 (1997), and admission of evidence of an offense the same as that charged is disfavored, although not per se excludable.

A suspect may be compelled to provide a handwriting exemplar, Commonwealth v. Buckley, 410 Mass. 209, 214-216 (1991), undergo a CAT scan and other “nontestimonial” psychological tests, Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 212 (1985), submit to breathalyzer and field sobriety tests, Commonwealth v. Brennan, supra, and go to the courtroom floor and strike a pose for identification purposes, Commonwealth v. Burke, 339 Mass. 521, 534-535 (1959).

Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

In determining whether instances of uncharged misconduct were erroneously admitted in evidence, we are mindful that such evidence “is justified on the theory that it relates not to a general disposition to repeat the same type of act because of bad or deficient character, but rather tends to prove other facts relevant to the ultimate issues in the case.” Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence § 4.4.6, at 155 (6th ed. 1994), citing Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

In Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 213-214 (1985), S.C., ante 356 (1996), we disapproved of the substitution of judges which did not comply with the requirements of Mass. R.

The defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s reference to the photograph raised an image of misbehavior or of bad character, see Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), is a strained depiction of what the jury actually heard, and unwarranted because nothing in the brief questions and answers indicated the apparent possession was unlawful or even improper.

See Commonwealth v. Barrett, 418 Mass. 788, 795 (1994), and cases cited; Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

Commonwealth v. Helfant, supra. Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

Com v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 208, n.5 (1985). 5.

See Commonwealth v. Cordle, 404 Mass. 733, 744 (1989); Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985); Commonwealth v. Welcome, 348 Mass 68, 70-71 (1964).

“It is a fundamental rule that the prosecution may not introduce evidence that a defendant previously has misbehaved, indictably or not, for the purpose of showing his bad character or propensity to commit the crime charged.” Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

The predominant concern, apart from the necessity and circumstantial trustworthiness elements common to all hearsay exceptions, see Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 209 (1985), is the accuracy of the record of past recollection rather *153 than who made the record.

Contending that the judge’s ruling admitting the evidence was erroneous, the defendant relies on “[the] fundamental rule that the prosecution may not introduce evidence that a defendant previously has misbehaved, indictably or not, for the purpose of showing his bad character or propensity to commit the crime charged.” Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

Evidence is relevant if it “relates to a subsidiary issue, such as the state of mind of the defendant, and is not offered to prove his guilt but rather to prove a relevant subsidiary fact.” *563 Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

In this Commonwealth, the prosecution “may not introduce evidence that a defendant previously has misbehaved, indictably or not, for the purpose of showing his bad character or propensity to commit the crime charged.” Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

Relying on the general rule that the “prosecution may not introduce evidence that a defendant previously has misbehaved, indictably or not, for the purpose of showing his bad character or propensity to commit the crime charged,” see Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), the defendant asserts “that the admission of evidence of prior beatings was clearly a prejudicial error which requires reversal of the conviction[s].” The defendant’s argument ignores the fact tha…

The defendant argues that this evidence was not relevant to the crime for which he was on trial, and that it was highly prejudicial. “[T]he prosecution may not introduce evidence that a defendant previously has misbehaved, indictably or not, for the purpose of showing his bad character or propensity to commit the crime charged,” Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985), but such evidence may be admissible if “relevant for some other purpose.” Commonwealth v. Bradshaw…

It has been stated that “the prosecution may not introduce evidence that a defendant previously has misbehaved, indictably or not, for the purpose of showing his bad character or propensity to commit the crime charged.” Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

See Commonwealth v. Trapp , 396 Mass. 202 , 206, 485 N.E.2d 162 (1985), S .

See Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 208 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996).

See Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 208 (1985); Commonwealth v. Sellon, 380 Mass. 220 , 230 & n.15 (1980).

See Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

See Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

See Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 209-210 (1985).

See Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202 (1985).

See Comm. v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 208 (1985) The contents of the report were also admissible as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the manager who denied seeing the wet area although it is clear they were not offered for such purpose and admitted substantively.

See Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).

See Proposed Mass.R.Evid. 404(b) (1981).” Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 206 (1985).