Commonwealth v. Jeni Pinelo.

── Commonwealth v. Jeni Pinelo. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General 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 25-P-1185 COMMONWEALTH vs. JENI PINELO. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 After a jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant was convicted of rape of a child, aggravated by a more than ten-year age difference, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 23A (b), and rape of a child by force, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22A. On appeal, the defendant contends that the judge erred in admitting the testimony of an investigating police officer and that such error calls for a reversal of his convictions and a new trial. We affirm. Background. On February 10, 2019, a party was held to celebrate the victim's fifteenth birthday. The defendant, his wife, and two young children were guests at the party and stayed overnight with the victim's family. The next day, the victim stayed home from school and spent the day in her mother's bedroom to do homework while her mother, stepfather, and the defendant's wife were all out of the house. The defendant entered the bedroom twice. The first time, the defendant talked to the victim about music and left at the victim's request so that she could continue to do homework. The second time, he proceeded to touch the victim's feet, legs, and her breasts over her shirt, all of which the victim explicitly objected to. The defendant then raped the victim, forcing his penis into her vagina. Before he left the room, the defendant told the victim not to tell anyone. The victim went back to her bedroom and woke up her sister to tell her certain details about the rape. Neither the victim nor her sister told their mother about the rape. Several months later, while attending the wake of the victim's grandmother, the defendant told his cousin that he had kissed and touched the victim. The next day, the cousin told the victim's stepfather what the defendant had said, and the victim's stepfather then told the victim's mother. After the victim's mother spoke to the victim, she brought her to the police station. The victim and her mother met with Watertown police officer Miguel Colon, who subsequently opened an investigation. At trial, Officer Colon testified that he initially met with the victim and her mother at the police station and only spoke with 2 the victim's mother. He also testified that during the investigation he provided Spanish interpretation for some of the witnesses including the victim's mother, stepfather, and one other witness. Officer Colon testified to the defendant's date of birth and explained that his involvement in the investigation included accompanying another officer to take photographs of the victim's home. Officer Colon's testimony contained no details about the investigation's findings or substantive information about the victim's allegations. Discussion. The defendant claims that Officer Colon's