Background
The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed Deivisson Goulart’s convictions on two counts of aggravated rape of a child and one count of forcible rape of a child. The prosecution arose from assaults against a teenage relative of Goulart’s wife who worked with him after coming to the United States. A jury convicted Goulart of three charges and acquitted him of a separate forcible-rape count.
During the victim’s difficult and sometimes nonresponsive testimony, she stated that Goulart pulled down the pants of “any kid” who was around. The remark ventured beyond the charged conduct and implicated information excluded before trial. The trial judge immediately struck the answer, told jurors that no other accusations or evidence were before them, and repeated the instruction after the witness interjected. He also directed the prosecutor to speak with the witness outside the jury’s presence. Goulart twice moved for a mistrial; the judge denied both requests and later reminded the jury to disregard stricken testimony.
The appeal raised a second issue about public access. Both sides filed their appellate briefs as impounded because they mentioned the acquitted count, although that acquittal remained publicly available in Superior Court and Goulart did not plan to seek impoundment there. The filings came after the SJC held in Commonwealth v. J.F. that General Laws chapter 276, section 100C generally requires impoundment of acquitted charges unless the defendant requests otherwise.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Ditkoff concluded that the trial judge acted within his discretion by using curative instructions rather than declaring a mistrial. The instructions were immediate, forceful, and repeated. The prosecutor did not highlight the improper statement, and the reference was vague rather than a detailed account of another accusation. The defense also used the victim’s hostility and courtroom behavior to challenge her credibility during closing argument. In that setting, the Appeals Court accepted the trial judge’s assessment that the jury could follow the instruction and decide only the charged allegations.
The court separately ruled that parties cannot create appellate impoundment through “self-help.” Supreme Judicial Court Rule 1:15 carries forward material already impounded in the trial court. But a party seeking impoundment for the first time on appeal must comply with the Uniform Rules on Impoundment Procedure by filing a particularized written motion, supporting it with an affidavit, explaining why impoundment is necessary, and showing why alternatives will not adequately protect the asserted interest. A court must then make a written finding of good cause.
Neither party followed that procedure or demonstrated good cause. Because the acquittal remained public in Superior Court, Goulart had not shown how mentioning it on appeal would prejudice him. The Appeals Court ordered the briefs unimpounded and required Goulart to file a public appendix with the victim’s name redacted. The court emphasized that public trial-court availability will not defeat good cause in every case, because including a hard-to-access document online can materially expand access. It also noted that even where some material warrants protection, courts may require public redacted versions.
Key Takeaways
- A prompt, specific, and repeated curative instruction can remedy a vague reference to uncharged misconduct without requiring a mistrial.
- Massachusetts appellate litigants may not designate a filing as impounded on their own when the underlying material was not impounded below.
- First-instance appellate impoundment requires a written motion, affidavit, particularized reasons, consideration of alternatives, and a judicial finding of good cause.
- Privacy rules can call for targeted redaction—especially of a sexual-assault victim’s identity—without justifying wholesale impoundment of briefs or appendices.
Why It Matters
The mistrial ruling is a practical reminder that trial judges retain substantial discretion to cure an improper answer in real time. Appellate counsel challenging that choice must address not only the content of the remark but also its specificity, repetition, prosecutorial use, the wording and timing of the instructions, and how the defense treated the witness before the jury.
The public-access discussion has broader significance for Massachusetts appellate practice. Counsel cannot assume that a reference to an acquittal automatically places an entire brief under seal, particularly when the trial record remains public. Lawyers should investigate the actual status of the material below, move formally when new appellate protection is needed, and propose narrow redactions or public versions. The opinion treats transparency as the baseline while preserving room for case-specific protection when Internet publication would produce a distinct, demonstrated harm.