Commonwealth v. Adjutant
443 Mass. 649 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a criminal case where the defendant claims self-defense and the identity of the first aggressor is in dispute, the trial judge has the discretion to admit evidence of the victim's prior specific acts of violent conduct, even if unknown to the defendant, to show the victim's propensity to be the aggressor.
Facts:
- Rhonda Adjutant, an employee of an escort service, was dispatched to the apartment of Stephen Whiting for a one-hour massage.
- Upon arrival, Whiting paid Adjutant, and Adjutant testified that Whiting snorted cocaine.
- Whiting demanded sexual intercourse, which Adjutant refused, stating it was not part of their arrangement.
- An argument ensued, and Adjutant contacted her dispatcher, who spoke with Whiting but failed to resolve the dispute.
- Adjutant testified that when she tried to leave, Whiting pushed her, retrieved a crowbar from his kitchen, and swung it at her, striking her leg.
- In response, Adjutant picked up a knife that was on a bedside table and nicked Whiting in the face.
- After Adjutant's drivers were alerted and kicked in the apartment door, Adjutant testified that Whiting advanced on her with the crowbar raised, at which point she stabbed him in the neck, inflicting a fatal wound.
- One of the drivers gave a conflicting account, testifying that after the door was kicked open, Whiting turned to face the drivers, and Adjutant then moved toward Whiting and stabbed him.
Procedural Posture:
- Rhonda Adjutant was indicted for murder in the second degree and tried in the Superior Court.
- At trial, Adjutant raised a claim of self-defense.
- The trial judge excluded evidence of the victim's prior violent behavior and reputation for violence on the grounds that Adjutant was not aware of it at the time of the killing.
- A jury found Adjutant guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter.
- Adjutant (appellant) appealed to the Appeals Court, which affirmed the conviction.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted Adjutant's (appellant's) application for further appellate review, limited to the evidentiary issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court have the discretion to admit evidence of a victim's prior specific acts of violent conduct, unknown to the defendant, to support a defendant's self-defense claim that the victim was the first aggressor?
Opinions:
Majority - Cordy, J.
Yes. A trial judge has the discretion to admit evidence of a victim's specific prior acts of violence, unknown to the defendant, for the limited purpose of helping the jury determine whether the victim was the first aggressor. The court recognized an overwhelming trend in other jurisdictions to allow such evidence, concluding it has substantial probative value in cases where the circumstances of the altercation are in dispute. This evidence helps the jury get a more complete picture of the events and assess the probability of the defendant's account. The court favors admitting evidence of specific acts over general reputation evidence, as specific acts are more concrete and reliable. To prevent prejudice, the trial judge must weigh the probative value of the proffered evidence against its potential for prejudice, confusion, or waste of time, and provide the jury with a limiting instruction.
Dissenting - Cowin, J.
No. Evidence of a victim's prior violent acts unknown to a defendant should not be admissible to prove the victim's character or propensity to act as the first aggressor. This decision breaks from the established rule against using character evidence to prove conduct. Such evidence is of questionable relevance, as past actions are not reliable predictors of behavior on a specific occasion. The new rule is one-sided and prejudicial, inviting juries to acquit a defendant based on the victim's perceived worth rather than the facts of the case. It creates an imbalance where a defendant can introduce character evidence against the victim, but the Commonwealth cannot do the same against the defendant, and it will lead to distracting and confusing 'mini-trials' over collateral matters.
Analysis:
This decision established a new common-law rule of evidence in Massachusetts, aligning the Commonwealth with the majority of American jurisdictions. It significantly alters the landscape of self-defense cases by allowing propensity evidence against a victim, which was previously inadmissible unless known to the defendant to prove their state of mind. The ruling provides defendants a powerful new tool for corroborating claims that the victim initiated the conflict. However, it places a substantial gatekeeping burden on trial judges to exercise their discretion carefully to prevent trials from devolving into character assassinations of victims, ensuring the evidence is genuinely probative and not just prejudicial.
