Defendant in 25P786 asks appeals court for new trial, says witnesses were "backdoor" first‑complaint evidence

Defense counsel Adrianna Condorcese argued to the three‑justice panel in Commonwealth v. Muda that testimony from several witnesses — a SANE nurse, friends identified in the trial transcript as Hilda/Calderon and Arnie — was improper "backdoor" first‑complaint evidence that served only to bolster the victim’s account. She told the court the witnesses had no independent relevance and that their testimony allowed the jury to infer facts the Commonwealth had not properly established.

Condorcese said the defendant presented three principal issues on appeal: (1) admission of what she called backdoor first‑complaint testimony, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel because the defense did not present its own DNA expert, and (3) materially prejudicial misstatements in the Commonwealth’s closing argument. On the closing‑argument claim she listed four examples: the prosecutor’s portrayal of who chose the Casamigos tequila at a party, attribution of a condom found in the trash without testing, and an assertion that the defendant removed the victim’s underwear despite no underwear being recovered. Counsel argued the combination of those points painted the defendant in an unfairly prejudicial light and merited a new trial.

The court pressed the defense on record‑based constraints. A presiding justice noted there was no motion for a new trial in the trial court, no affidavit from the proposed expert in the appellate record, and no trial‑court findings on how an expert’s testimony would have changed the verdict. The court observed that those absent elements weigh against deciding an ineffective‑assistance claim on this record.

Mallory Skirl, appearing for the Commonwealth, replied that the trial judge had conducted voir dire and motions in limine before admitting the primary first‑complaint witness and that other witnesses offered independent, admissible testimony: one filmed an interaction and supplied an image used by police to identify a codefendant; another supplied text messages bearing on frame of mind and joint‑venture theory; and the SANE nurse provided foundation for how DNA evidence was collected. Skirl also noted that the record showed the defendant had filed and then withdrawn a notice of an expert, a move she characterized as strategic and inconsistent with an ineffective‑assistance claim grounded in a missing expert.

After questioning from the panel and extended argument, the court took Commonwealth v. Muda under advisement. No decision was announced at the hearing.