## Facts

- The Commonwealth prosecuted Carl Teixera under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 273, § 15 for neglecting to support an illegitimate child.
- The child’s mother testified she dated Teixera weekly from August 1979 to January 1980 and had sexual relations with him from late August through December 1979.
- The mother learned she was pregnant in late November 1979 and told Teixera; she testified he suggested abortion and, at another time, adoption.
- The child was born June 30, 1980; no father was listed on the birth certificate.
- The mother testified she called Teixera in July 1980 to tell him he had a son.
- The mother applied for welfare benefits in September 1980; a criminal complaint issued in August 1981.
- At trial, the Commonwealth presented no evidence of Teixera’s income, employment, assets, financial condition, or earning capacity during the relevant time.
- The Commonwealth also presented no evidence of the mother’s marital status at conception or birth.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Teixera had the financial ability or earning capacity to support the child, an element of criminal nonsupport under § 15.
2. Whether a jury instruction that failure to provide support is “prima facie evidence” that the neglect is wilful and without cause improperly shifted any burden from the Commonwealth to the defendant.
3. Whether the prosecutor’s closing argument inviting an inference from Teixera’s failure to deny paternity in conversations with the mother violated constitutional protections or denied a fair trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the conviction and ordered entry of a judgment of not guilty.
- The court held the Commonwealth’s proof was legally insufficient because it offered no evidence of Teixera’s ability or capacity to provide support.
- The court stated that instructing the jury that nonsupport is “prima facie evidence” of wilful neglect, as given, was improper because it risked burden shifting inconsistent with due process.
- The court found no reversible constitutional violation from the prosecutor’s comments about Teixera’s pretrial, noncustodial failure to deny paternity, while cautioning that prosecutorial comment cannot compromise the right to remain silent at trial.

## Legal Principles

- In a prosecution for criminal nonsupport of an illegitimate child under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 273, § 15, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the financial ability or earning capacity to support the child.
- A conviction cannot rest on speculation about a defendant’s ability to pay; the prosecution must introduce evidence from which ability or earning capacity can be found.
- When a conviction is reversed for insufficiency of the evidence on an essential element, the remedy is entry of a judgment of not guilty, not a new trial.
- Statutory “prima facie evidence” language must be presented, if at all, in a way that does not create a mandatory presumption and does not shift the burden of production or persuasion to the defendant on any element.
- Prosecutorial comment on a defendant’s silence is constrained; silence at trial (and certain custodial contexts) is protected, while noncustodial pretrial failure to deny an accusation may be treated differently depending on the circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the verdict and ordered acquittal because the Commonwealth failed to prove Teixera’s ability or earning capacity to support the child, and it warned that nonsupport “prima facie” instructions must not dilute the prosecution’s burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.


Commonwealth v. Teixera, 396 Mass. 746, 488 N.E.2d 775 (Mass. 1986)