View Case Document in Html

Case Details

Case Name

COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBERT R. MEDEIROS.

Release Date

1/13/2026

Please use your browser search to search within the document

Document Content

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-824

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

ROBERT R. MEDEIROS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Following a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant

was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of

G. L. c. 265, § 15B, assault and battery in violation of G. L.

c. 265, § 13A (a), and breaking and entering in the daytime with

intent to commit a felony in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 18.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the judge erred in denying

his request to ask individual jury voir dire questions about

bias related to substance users claiming a lack of criminal

responsibility. We affirm.

Background. We summarize the facts the jury could have

found, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-

677 (1979). In 2023, the defendant lived in an apartment

directly below the victim. On the morning of January 20, 2023,

the victim heard someone knocking "aggressive[ly]" on his door.

He looked through his peephole, and because he recognized the

defendant as his neighbor, opened the door about halfway. The

defendant "seemed very upset and agitated," accused the victim

of taking his phone and "hack[ing] into [his] Wi-Fi," pushed his

way into the apartment, and swung a knife at the victim. The

defendant tried "to stab at" the victim in "an overhand stabbing

motion with the blade facing down," and the victim testified

that if he had not held the defendant's arm, the knife probably

would have made contact with him. The victim managed to push

the defendant away from him and out of the apartment and yelled

for help. The police arrived at the scene after receiving a

report of an attempted stabbing.

The defense at trial was a lack of criminal responsibility.

The defendant's sister testified to the defendant's early use of

alcohol and other substances and that the defendant entered a

treatment program "by his early 20's." He was diagnosed with

bipolar disorder in 2003. Several months prior to the incident

on January 20, 2023, the defendant began to exhibit more signs

of "paranoia . . . getting progressively worse over time," in

particular regarding the victim. The defendant told his sister

that he believed the victim had installed "video cameras all

over the place," and was "coming into [the defendant's] house

. . . [and] planting devices, cameras, [and] video cameras."

One of the police officers who responded to the incident

testified that the defendant reported that the victim "had been

spying on him," and that "he hacked his Wi-Fi router, or his

phones."

Expert witnesses testified to the defendant's psychiatric

conditions and substance use disorders. The defendant regularly

took a variety of prescription medications as well as illicit

drugs. One of the psychologists testified that, in his opinion,

the defendant had a mental disease or defect that resulted in a

lack of criminal responsibility, and that the defendant could

not "think through things that he was doing," "distinguish

between what's real and what's unreal," "realize the criminality

of his actions," or "conform his actions to the requirements of

the law."

Discussion. The defendant argues that the judge's failure

to ask specific voir dire questions intended to investigate

juror bias about addiction and substance use was an abuse of

discretion and an error not cured by the jury instructions given

at the conclusion of trial.

General Laws c. 234A, § 67A, requires judges to ask several

categories of voir dire questions to potential jurors in

criminal cases, "including questions regarding the presumption

of innocence, the Commonwealth's burden of proof, and the

absence of any burden on the defendant." Commonwealth v.

Espinal, 482 Mass. 190, 195 n.6 (2019). Section 67A requires

additional inquiry where "it appears that . . . a decision [may]

be made in whole or in part upon issues extraneous to the case,

including, but not limited to, community attitudes, possible

exposure to potentially prejudicial material or possible

preconceived opinions toward the credibility of certain classes

of persons." Commonwealth v. Steeves, 490 Mass. 270, 285

(2022), quoting G. L. c. 234A, § 67A. However, "[a] judge has

substantial discretion in deciding what questions to ask, and

need not put the specific questions proposed by the defendant."

Commonwealth v. Pope, 392 Mass. 493, 505 (1984). "A judge need

not probe into every conceivable bias imagined by counsel."

Espinal, supra at 198.

"We review a trial judge's decisions regarding the scope of

jury voir dire for abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v.

Tejada, 484 Mass. 1, 12, cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 441 (2020).

"[A]n abuse of discretion occurs 'where we conclude the judge

made a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors relevant

to the decision, such that the decision falls outside the range

of reasonable alternatives.'" Espinal, 482 Mass. at 198,

quoting L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).

In deciding what individual questions would be presented to

the venire, the judge considered requests by defense counsel to

include questions designed to evaluate whether jurors were free

from bias about mental health, suicidal ideation, and substance

use. After reviewing the proposed questions, the judge included

questions regarding mental illness and expert testimony

regarding mental health disorders, and juror experiences with

suicidal ideation, but declined to include individual questions

regarding attitudes toward substance use. During individual

voir dire at sidebar, the judge made inquiry of each juror to

ensure that each would serve fairly, impartially, and

objectively, and inquired specifically regarding any opinions

about mental health that would prevent them from considering

testimony from mental health providers in a fair and impartial

manner or finding someone not guilty by reason of insanity.

While defense counsel argued that additional, specific voir dire

questioning was necessary "to establish whether [the jurors]

genuinely underst[ood] that somebody can suffer from both a

mental disease or defect and a substance-use disorder," and

because "there are some people who might have a bias . . . that

if you use drugs, that is a moral failing," defense counsel did

not provide any evidence beyond her own conjecture and opinion

to support this contention when asked by the judge. "A

defendant's 'bare allegation' that there exists a 'widespread

belief' that could result in bias is not sufficient to cause us

to conclude that the judge abused his discretion by declining to

conduct voir dire on the issue." Espinal, 482 Mass. at 200.

In addition to the voir dire questioning that included

specific questions designed to establish that the jurors could

fairly and impartially assess the defendant's claim that he

lacked criminal responsibility, the jury instruction of criminal

responsibility included an explanation of the interplay between

mental health, voluntary substance use, and criminal

responsibility, and set out what was required for the

Commonwealth to meet its burden and for the jury to determine if

the defendant was criminally responsible. Moreover, the

defendant makes no challenge to the correctness or completeness

of the judge's detailed instructions. We conclude that the

judge properly "inquire[d] individually of each potential juror,

. . . whether the juror ha[d] any opinion that would prevent him

or her from returning a verdict of not guilty by reason of

insanity, if the Commonwealth fails in its burden to prove the

defendant criminally responsible," Commonwealth v. Seguin, 421

Mass. 243, 249 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1180 (1996),

properly instructed the jury on the issues of substance use and

its relation to criminal responsibility, and did not abuse his

discretion in declining to ask the specific voir dire questions

requested by the defendant.

Judgments affirmed.

By the Court (Massing,

Sacks & Allen, JJ. ),

Clerk

Entered: January 13, 2026.

The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

Docket Number - 24-P-0824main content

Case Details

Document Content