reasonable possibility error in Massachusetts

2026We review preserved objections for prejudicial error and consider "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the jury's verdict." Commonwealth v. Carriere, 470 Mass. 1, 7 (2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Alphas, 430 Mass. 8, 23 (1999).

2023Applying the prejudicial error standard, a test that is "quantitatively more favorable to a defendant than the substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice test" we applied in Spring, Commonwealth v. Alphas, 430 Mass. 8, 23 (1999) (Greaney, J., concurring), "there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the jury's verdict" (citation omitted).

2025While we agree with the juvenile (and the judge) that the challenged testimony was inadmissible, there is not "a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the jury's verdict." Id.

2024Because the defendant preserved the issue,5 we review for prejudicial error, "inquir[ing] whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the jury's verdict." Miranda, 492 Mass. at 306, quoting Commonwealth v. Odgren, 483 Mass. 41, 46 (2019).

2026We review preserved objections for prejudicial error and consider "whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the jury's verdict." Commonwealth v. Carriere, 470 Mass. 1, 7 (2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Alphas, 430 Mass. 8, 23 (1999).

2026Commonwealth v. Carriere, 470 Mass. 1, 7 (2014).

2017"An error is not prejudicial if it 'did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect.'" Commonwealth v. Cruz, 445 Mass. 589, 591 (2005), quoting Commonwealth v. Flebotte, 417 Mass. 348, 353 (1994).

2003The erroneously admitted testimony requires reversal unless we are “sure that the error did not influence a jury, or had but very slight effect . . . .” Commonwealth v. Flebotte, 417 Mass. 348, 353 (1994), quoting from Commonwealth v. Peruzzi, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 437, 445 (1983).

2003The burden of showing the absence of error is on the Commonwealth, see Commonwealth v. Hanger, 377 Mass. 503, 510 (1979), and cases cited, and the Commonwealth also bears the risk of doubt when any exists as to the error being nonprejudicial.

1999The burden of showing the absence of error is on the Commonwealth, see Commonwealth v. Hanger, 377 Mass. 503, 510 (1979), and cases cited, and the Commonwealth also bears the risk of doubt when any exists as to the error being nonprejudicial.

2024"Because the defendant objected to the argument at trial, we review for prejudicial error." Commonwealth v. Andrade, 468 Mass. 543, 551 (2014).1 "This means that we inquire[ ] whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the jury's verdict." Commonwealth v. Souza, 492 Mass. 615 , 627 (2023), quoting Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 478 Mass. 142 , 150 (2017).

2024Relevant factors include "whether the judge's instructions mitigated the error . . . whether the errors in the arguments went to the heart of the issues at trial or concerned collateral matters . . . whether the jury would be able to sort out the excessive claims made by the prosecutor . . . and whether the Commonwealth's case was so overwhelming that the errors did not prejudice the defendant." Commonwealth v. Teixeira, 486 Mass. 617 , 635 (2021), quoting Commonwealth v. Niemic, 472 Mass. 665, 673-674 (2015).

2023The defendant requested, and then objected to the omission of, the sudden combat instruction,4 and so we review for prejudicial error, Commonwealth v. Gallett, 481 Mass. 662, 678 (2019), by "inquir[ing] whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the jury's verdict" (citation omitted), Commonwealth v. Odgren, 483 Mass. 41, 46 (2019).

2021Any preserved error is reviewed for prejudice to determine "whether 'there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the jury's verdict.'" Commonwealth v. Wardsworth, 482 Mass. 454, 458 (2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 478 Mass. 369 , 376 (2017).

2017"An error is not prejudicial if it 'did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect.'" Commonwealth v. Cruz, 445 Mass. 589, 591 (2005), quoting Commonwealth v. Flebotte, 417 Mass. 348, 353 (1994).

2007See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Correia, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 597, 604 (2006).

2003The erroneously admitted testimony requires reversal unless we are “sure that the error did not influence a jury, or had but very slight effect . . . .” Commonwealth v. Flebotte, 417 Mass. 348, 353 (1994), quoting from Commonwealth v. Peruzzi, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 437, 445 (1983).

2000See Commonwealth v. Alphas, ante 8, 23 (1999) (Greaney, J., concurring) (in deciding whether error is harmless, “[t]he appellate court . . . inquires whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the jury’s verdict”). 6 In making this determination, relevant factors include “(1) the relationship between the evidence and the premise of the defense; (2) who introduced the issue at trial; (3) the weight or quantum of evidence of guilt; (4) the frequency of the reference; and (5) the availability or effect of curative instructions.” Commonwealth v. Mahdi, 388 M