Commonwealth v. Stevenson
Annotate this CaseStevenson moved to dismiss indictments charging aggravated rape of a child with force, G. L. 265, 22B; and five counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of 14, G. L. 265, 13B.1, arguing that the Commonwealth offered only hearsay testimony from the investigating officer. The judge allowed the motion, reasoning that the Commonwealth's exclusive reliance on such testimony in this case constituted "extraordinary circumstances" and that "there was no good reason for [the complainant] not to testify." The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the case does not present an extraordinary circumstance warranting a variance from its general approval of indictments returned on the basis of hearsay testimony. Stevenson was provided with a detailed report of what the complainant told the officer, and of follow-up interviews with potential witnesses. A defendant has no right to require the Commonwealth to call witnesses to testify before the grand jury so that he might have transcripts of their testimony to use at trial. The grand jury heard all the information available to the police at the time; if the members had been uncertain about returning indictments based on the hearsay testimony regarding a 14-year-old case, they could have requested further evidence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.