NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 20-P-758 COMMONWEALTH vs. RUDY MORALES. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of rape of a child aggravated by a five-year age difference. Finding there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, we affirm. "[I]n reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask whether, taking the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, any rational trier of fact could find that each of the essential elements of the crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt."1 Commonwealth v. Santos, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 3 (2021), citing Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677-678 (1979). Here, the victim testified that when she was about ten years old, the defendant (an adult family friend) raped her at his home. That 1 The offense required proof that: (1) the defendant had sexual intercourse (2) with a victim under twelve years of age, and (3) there existed more than a five-year age difference between the defendant and the victim. G. L. c. 265, § 23A (a). "testimony, which the jury found to be credible, was sufficient, standing alone, to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt."2 Santos, supra. The defendant nevertheless argues that the evidence was insufficient because the victim had a potential reason to lie, namely that as a rape victim, she could pursue a so-called "U- Visa" that would allow her and her family to stay in the United States.3 See Commonwealth v. Sealy, 467 Mass. 617, 621-623 (2014) (providing overview of U-Visa application process). The U-Visa issue provided the defendant a legitimate basis to attempt to impeach the credibility of the victim and her mother who also had testified. See supra, note 3. However, the extent to which any of the Commonwealth's witnesses was biased was a 2 Although not necessary, the Commonwealth also presented circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of the victim's mother, that corroborated much of the victim's testimony. See Santos, 100 Mass. App. Ct. at 4 ("Corroborative evidence . . . is of course still admissible, but it is permitted in order to overcome, not give voice to, the societal tendency to disbelieve sexual assault victims" [quotations …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals