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 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Commonwealth v. Dennis L. Coates, Jr.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 24-P-1370

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• 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-1370

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

DENNIS L. COATES, JR.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant appeals from his conviction of assault and

battery on a family or household member, claiming that he is

entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor improperly

referred to facts not in evidence in her closing argument. We

conclude that the argument did not exceed the limits of proper

argument and affirm.

The defendant was arrested following a physical altercation

with the victim, with whom he resided. He pushed the victim

after grabbing her with enough force to leave minor bruising.

At trial, the defendant testified that he grabbed the defendant,

leaving marks on her body, and then provided inconsistent

testimony that the victim demanded either once or twice that he
release her.1 Based on this testimony, during her closing

argument, the prosecutor began by stating, "There's one thing

that's not up for debate, it's that the Defendant grabbed [the

victim] by the arms and left marks on her -- left bruises on

her. He said so himself. . . . He said that twice [the victim]

begged him to let her go." Defense counsel raised no objection

to either the prosecutor's closing argument or the relevant

parts of the defendant's cross-examination. "Where, as here,

there was no objection to the challenged statements at trial, we

review to determine whether there was error and, if so, whether

it created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice."

Commonwealth v. Cuffee, 492 Mass. 25, 32 (2023).

The cross-examination included the following relevant
1

exchange:

Q: You left marks on her; right?

A: Correct.

Q: And you said -- you just quoted her, you said, "Let me
go; let me go," that's what she told you; right?

A: Yes.

Q: So you were holding her long enough where she had to
say let me go twice; right?

A: No, she said it once.

Q: Well, that's not what you just testified to; right?

A: No, I didn't. I said once.

2
Although the defendant now claims that the prosecutor's

closing argument relied on facts not before the jury, this

argument is belied by the record. The defendant testified that

he had "grabbed" the victim and "left marks on her." And

although he did not use the term "bruises" to describe those

marks, "[a] prosecutor is entitled to marshal the facts in

evidence, and any fair inferences drawn from those facts, and to

argue 'forcefully for the defendant's conviction.'" Cuffee, 492

Mass. at 32, quoting Commonwealth v. Rutherford, 476 Mass. 639,

643 (2017). It was proper argument for the prosecutor to

describe the marks on the victim's arms as bruises based on the

victim's testimony and the photographs which were admitted in

evidence. Furthermore, it was the defendant himself who

testified that the victim stated, "Let me go; let me go." As

noted, there was no objection. Although the defendant slightly

altered his story at various points, there was no error and

3
therefore no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice in the

prosecutor's closing remarks.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Vuono,
Ditkoff & D'Angelo, JJ.2),

Clerk

Entered: March 6, 2026.

2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

4