Massachusetts Appeals Court Reverses Indecent Assault Conviction Over Hearsay in Medical Records
In a significant decision for Massachusetts criminal defense attorneys and defendants facing sex offense charges, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed three convictions for indecent assault and battery on a child after finding that inadmissible hearsay in medical records improperly bolstered the alleged victim’s credibility.
In Commonwealth v. Vicente Sam, 24-P-1006 (Jan. 29, 2026), the Court held that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to request redaction of hearsay statements from hospital records — statements that repeated the complainant’s allegations and enhanced her credibility in a case that turned entirely on whether the jury believed her.
The result: the convictions were vacated, the verdicts were set aside, and the case was remanded for a new trial.
The Charges: Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child
The defendant was convicted in New Bedford District Court of three counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 13B.
The allegations involved two incidents in July 2019 in which the complainant — referred to by a pseudonym — claimed that the defendant touched and digitally penetrated her and later performed oral sex while the two were alone in a vehicle.
There was no forensic evidence of injury. A sexual assault examination found no physical signs of abuse.
No first complaint witness testified.
The case rose and fell on credibility.
The Critical Error: Hearsay in Medical Records
At trial, the Commonwealth introduced hospital records from the complainant’s sexual assault examination.
Buried within those records was a statement from the complainant’s mother repeating the child’s detailed allegations:
That the defendant touched her thigh and neck
That he inserted his fingers into her vagina
That he later pulled over and “licked” her private area
These statements were admitted into evidence without redaction.
The problem?
The mother was not a first complaint witness. The trial judge had already ruled that she could not testify in that capacity.
Yet through the medical records, her repetition of the allegations reached the jury anyway.
Why This Matters Under Massachusetts Law
Massachusetts follows the first complaint doctrine in sexual assault cases. Only the first person told of the alleged assault may testify about the details of that disclosure.
The rule exists for a reason: repetition of an accusation can unfairly enhance credibility.
As the Appeals Court explained, repeating the narrative of alleged sexual abuse “tends to enhance the credibility of the complainant to the prejudice of the defendant.”
Here, the medical record allowed the jury to hear the detailed allegations a second time — this time through the voice of the mother — without any limiting instruction.
That repetition effectively served as corroboration in a case where credibility was the only real issue.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
At the motion for new trial hearing, trial counsel admitted that failing to request redaction of the mother’s statement was an oversight.
The Appeals Court had little difficulty finding that:
The statements were inadmissible hearsay, and
Counsel’s failure to redact them fell below the standard expected of an ordinary fallible lawyer.
The more important question was prejudice.
The motion judge had ruled that the error did not change the outcome because the defense theory was that the assault never occurred — not that it was consensual.
The Appeals Court disagreed.
The central issue was credibility. And when credibility is central, repetition of detailed allegations — especially without a limiting instruction — can materially affect the jury’s evaluation of the case.
The Court concluded that the error deprived the defendant of a substantial ground of defense.
The convictions were vacated.
Key Takeaways for Massachusetts Criminal Defense Cases
1. Medical Records Are Not Automatically Safe Evidence
Medical records are frequently admitted in sex offense prosecutions. But they often contain embedded hearsay — especially statements from parents or third parties.
If not carefully reviewed and redacted, they can become vehicles for improper corroboration.
2. First Complaint Rules Still Matter
Even when a first complaint witness does not testify, repetition of allegations through other witnesses or documents can violate the spirit — and sometimes the letter — of the doctrine.
3. Credibility-Driven Cases Are Highly Sensitive to Error
When a case turns on “who do you believe?”, even seemingly small evidentiary mistakes can be outcome-determinative.
Why This Decision Is Important in Massachusetts Sex Crime Defense
Indecent assault and battery on a child charges carry devastating consequences:
Mandatory sex offender registration
Potential state prison exposure
Lifelong reputational harm
Immigration consequences for noncitizens
Commonwealth v. Sam underscores something critical:
Even in emotionally charged cases, constitutional protections matter.
Defense counsel must vigilantly guard against improper bolstering of testimony — especially in cases with no physical evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Can hearsay in medical records lead to reversal in a Massachusetts criminal case?
Yes. If medical records contain inadmissible hearsay that bolsters a complainant’s credibility — especially without a limiting instruction — a conviction may be reversed, as in Commonwealth v. Sam.
What is the first complaint doctrine in Massachusetts?
Massachusetts allows only the first person told of an alleged sexual assault to testify about the details of that disclosure. The purpose is to prevent repeated storytelling from unfairly enhancing credibility.
What qualifies as ineffective assistance of counsel?
Under Commonwealth v. Saferian, counsel is ineffective if performance falls measurably below that of an ordinary fallible lawyer and prejudices the defendant. Failing to object to inadmissible hearsay that affects credibility can meet that standard.
Can a conviction be vacated even if the alleged victim testified?
Yes. If improper corroborating evidence was admitted and credibility was central to the case, appellate courts may vacate the conviction.
Charged With Indecent Assault or a Sex Offense in Massachusetts?
Sex offense cases often come down to credibility. The rules of evidence matter. Strategic decisions matter. And mistakes can change the outcome of a trial.
At Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we defend clients accused of serious felony and misdemeanor offenses throughout Massachusetts, including:
Indecent assault and battery
Rape and sexual assault
Child sexual offense allegations
District Court and Superior Court sex crime cases
If you or someone you love is facing charges in New Bedford, Brockton, or anywhere in Massachusetts, call us immediately.
📞 (508) 897-0001
Early, strategic intervention can make the difference between a conviction and a defense.