Appeals Court Hears Challenge to Prior‑bad‑acts Evidence and Counsel’s Failure to Engage Expert in Kamath v. Tavaresch (No. 23‑P‑1494)

BOSTON — The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard oral argument March 25 in Kamath v. Tavaresch, No. 23‑P‑1494, where the panel considered two central issues raised by defense counsel: whether evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts was improperly admitted and whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to retain a medical expert to address the timing and appearance of abrasions the victim described.

Defense attorney Lisa Kaur told the three‑judge panel she was asking the court to find that admitting prior bad‑act evidence was “both error and prejudicial error,” arguing the trial judge failed to mitigate prejudice with a clear contemporaneous limiting instruction and that the final charge did not remedy that omission. Kaur cited recent decisions, including Samia (492 Mass. 135 (2023)), for the “importance of specificity and precision in the context of ruling on bad act evidence.”

Kaur also pressed the court on an ineffective‑assistance claim, saying trial counsel did not engage a medical expert to evaluate abrasions…