Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Commonwealth v. Elon Silva Duarte.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 24-P-0292

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (10)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

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

24-P-292

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

ELON SILVA DUARTE.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, Elon Silva Duarte, appeals from his

conviction of one count of indecent assault and battery on a

person over age fourteen. Because we conclude that it was

prejudicial error not to provide a jury instruction on bad acts

after the defendant requested such an instruction, we vacate the

judgment and set aside the verdict.

Background. The defendant was originally charged with two

counts of indecent assault and battery on two separate victims,

M.W. and R.H., who each alleged that someone touched their

buttocks while in the same store on the same day. The two

complaints were joined and tried together. Prior to the start

of trial, the defendant made a motion in limine to exclude
evidence of other bad acts, arguing that evidence of each

touching was bad acts evidence as to the other touching. Since

the cases were joined at that time, the judge denied the motion.

Testimony at trial revealed that R.H. did not see who had

touched her. Therefore, at the close of the Commonwealth's

case, the defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty

on the count relating to R.H., which the judge allowed, ruling

that the Commonwealth offered insufficient evidence to prove

that the defendant was the person who touched R.H.

Just before closing arguments, the judge instructed the

jury that the count relating to R.H. had been "addressed" and

that the jury "need not consider that case at all." After

closing arguments, the judge charged the jury, but did not

further instruct on the permissible uses, if any, of R.H.'s

testimony. Before the jury was excused to deliberate, the

defendant asked at sidebar that the judge add a specific

instruction on other bad acts. The judge declined to do so.

The jury then found the defendant guilty on the count relating

to M.W.

Discussion. The defendant argues that the judge erred in

declining to give a limiting instruction on the use of R.H.'s

testimony. We review preserved claims for prejudicial error.

See Commonwealth v. McCravy, 430 Mass. 758, 764 (2000). "This

2
means that we inquire[] whether there is a reasonable

possibility that the error might have contributed to the jury's

verdict" (quotation and citation omitted). Commonwealth v.

Wolfe, 478 Mass. 142, 150 (2017).

R.H.'s testimony was originally admissible as substantive

evidence of the count naming her as the victim;1 once that case

was directed out, the testimony's relevance was limited, as the

Commonwealth conceded at oral argument, to those purposes for

which bad acts evidence may be used.2 Because bad acts evidence

"carries with it a high risk of prejudice to the defendant"

(citation omitted), Commonwealth v. Anestal, 463 Mass. 655, 672

(2012), once admitted, it is "quite important that the judge

should instruct the jury of the limited purposes for which such

evidence could properly be considered by them." Commonwealth v.

Mills, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 500, 506 (1999). Thus, even where

1 While ultimately not the situation here by the time the
judge gave the jury charge, even when cases are joined, "[t]he
better practice is to give an appropriate instruction" on the
purposes for which the evidence of similarity may be considered,
to avoid "the risk that the jury may draw the forbidden
inference of propensity" (quotation and citation omitted).
Commonwealth v. Vazquez, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 305, 309 n.3 (2005).

2 The defendant also argues that R.H.'s testimony was
inadmissible in the first place, because the inference that it
was the defendant who touched R.H. necessarily relied on
forbidden propensity reasoning. Because we are vacating the
conviction in any event, we need not reach that argument, which
was not made to the trial judge.

3
"there may have been a proper limited purpose for the testimony,

the failure to guide the jury on their use of this evidence [can

be] prejudicial error." Commonwealth v. Roe, 90 Mass. App. Ct.

801, 807 (2016).

The judge here did not instruct the jury on the limited

purposes for which they could consider R.H.'s testimony.

Rather, the jury were instructed only that they "need not

consider [R.H.'s] case at all" (emphasis added). This statement

was insufficient because it did not tell the jury whether they

were still permitted to consider R.H.'s testimony, and for what

purposes. As a result, there remains a "reasonable possibility"

(citation omitted), Wolfe, 478 Mass. at 150, that the jury

impermissibly considered the testimony as propensity evidence,

thus influencing the verdict in this case where the

Commonwealth's other evidence was not overwhelming. See

Commonwealth v. Helfant, 398 Mass. 214, 224-225 (1986)

(discussing limited permissible uses of bad acts evidence).

Thus, it was prejudicial error for the judge not to give a bad

acts instruction after the defendant requested one. Contrast

Commonwealth v. Nascimento-Depina, 496 Mass. 1, 9, cert. denied,

146 S. Ct. 260 (2025) (no requirement that judge give limiting

instruction sua sponte).

4
Because we vacate on those grounds, we need not reach the

defendant's other arguments. We note the following, however,

because there may be a retrial. First, regarding the

admissibility of the video recording of the defendant's

interview with the police, which includes an officer

interpreting the defendant's statements from Brazilian

Portuguese to English, the factors set out in Commonwealth v.

AdonSoto, 475 Mass. 497, 503 (2016), apply in determining

whether the interpreter's statements are hearsay. Second, the

judge's accident instruction omitted significant concepts

contained in the model instruction, and it unnecessarily

described the circumstances under which an accident instruction

should be given, using the phrase "no matter how incredible,"

which the jury could have misunderstood as an opinion on the

defendant's credibility.3 See Commonwealth v. Maloney, 23 Mass.

App. Ct. 1016, 1017 (1987); Instruction 9.100 of the Criminal

Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court (2009).

Finally, we express no opinion on whether M.W.'s pointing out

3 We note that accident was the defendant's sole defense at
trial, and the judge's instruction on accident, at a minimum,
fell short of the model instruction. See Instruction 9.100 of
the Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District
Court (2009). In fairness to the judge, it appears that he may
have used language provided to him by defense counsel. That
notwithstanding, the insufficient accident instruction viewed in
combination with the absence of a limiting instruction discussed
supra, requires that the conviction be vacated.

5
the defendant to her mother in the Dollar Tree store constituted

a prior out-of-court identification or whether good cause was

required -- or satisfied -- for their in-court identifications

at trial. See Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228, 241

(2014).

Judgment vacated.

Verdict set aside.

By the Court (Vuono, Neyman &
Sacks, JJ.4),

Clerk

Entered: March 3, 2026.

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

6