Massachusetts Evidence: A Courtroom Reference
(MCLE, Inc. 2024 ed.)

Electronic Update Service

Selected recent developments in Massachusetts evidence law,
compiled by MCLE staff.

Refresh this page as necessary to display the most recent version.

Chapter 1 [§ 1.5.2]

Social Media. In Commonwealth v. Lora, 494 Mass. 235, 246–47 (2024), social media messages posted three weeks after a killing were not too remote in time and were evidence of the defendant’s retaliatory motive and state of mind and tended to show that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Accordingly, a motion in limine to exclude this evidence would have been unsuccessful.

Chapter 5 [§ 5.2.1(d)]

One-Photograph Identification. In Commonwealth v. Jacquard, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 351, 355–59 (2024), the court declined to suppress a one-photograph identification—given, among other factors, the need for the police to search a large shopping mall for a suspected sex offender within one hour of the crime under investigation. Mass. G. Evid. § 1112(b)(1)(A) (2024). The court concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, there was good reason to conduct the one-on-one identification.

Chapter 6 [§ 6.6.3]

Expert Testimony—Groundless Speculation. In Commonwealth v. O’Brien, No. SJC-13078 (Mass. July 03, 2024), the Supreme Judicial Court considered expert testimony regarding a shoe print on the victim’s chest, where the print “lack[ed] a perimeter and definition.” The court found that the expert’s conclusion—that certain features of the shoe were “similar to portions of [a] Nike Air Max [shoe]”—was helpful to the jury and did not constitute “groundless speculation.”

Chapter 10 [§ 10.2.1(d)]

Prior Bad Acts—Jury Instructions. In Commonwealth v. Linenkemper, No. 23-P-601 (Mass. App. Ct. July 19, 2024), a contemporaneous jury instruction incorrectly stated that the defendant’s prior bad acts had “no relevance whatsoever to the charges in this case.” The court held that the actions in question—involving the defendant’s violent acts against the victim—were admissible “for the limited purpose of showing the hostile nature of the relationship between the victim and the defendant, as well as the defendant’s intent.”