Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
A charge of violating a harassment prevention order in Massachusetts often rests on messages sent from blocked numbers, new email accounts, or profiles with no name attached. Before a jury may consider any of those messages, the Commonwealth has to connect them to the person charged. An Appeals Court decision issued September 24, 2026, Commonwealth v. Hayes, confirmed the standard for that first step. It also confirmed that the fight over authorship does not end once a message is admitted.
A judge may admit an electronic message if the evidence could let a jury find, more likely than not, that the accused wrote it. The jury then makes that same finding itself before weighing what the message says. Every element still has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense can still argue that someone else sent it.
Years of Contact and a Permanent Order
The two met in a high school class in 2005. His unwanted calls, notes, and emails continued into her college years. She obtained her first harassment prevention order in 2009 after her car was keyed. A one-year order followed a 2015 email. A permanent order issued in December 2016.
She then began receiving alerts about attempts to log into her accounts. A self-described hacker told her someone had tried to hire him to get into her Facebook and Google accounts. In November 2019 she received five calls in quick succession, the last from a number she connected to the man she had the order against. A search warrant for his devices turned up screenshots of her login pages and Notes entries titled “Hacking Facebook profiles.” He represented himself at a Superior Court trial and was convicted of stalking, criminal harassment, identity fraud, and violating the order, among other charges.
Authenticating a Message in a Harassment Prevention Order Case
Authentication is the showing that an item of evidence is what the party offering it claims it is. For an email or text, that usually means evidence of who wrote it. Under Commonwealth v. Purdy, 459 Mass. 442 (2011), the judge first decides whether the evidence could convince a jury by a preponderance that the accused is the author. The Appeals Court has described authenticity and identity as different legal concepts, even where the line between them is fine.
The jury in Hayes struggled with that line. It asked twice whether authorship needed proof by a preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge answered that the jurors should first decide whether it was more likely than not that he wrote the emails, disregarding any they could not attribute to him. He then repeated that the Commonwealth had to prove every element of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appeals Court held those instructions correct and found they did not lower the Commonwealth’s burden.
The penalty for the underlying charge is set by G. L. c. 258E, § 9. A violation is punishable by up to 2½ years in a house of correction, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
Where the Defense Contests Authorship
In Hayes, a search of the accused’s devices supplied evidence tying him to the attempts on her accounts. The warrant authorized seizure of his communication history and of data related to getting into the woman’s accounts. The court held that officers could open a photo folder bearing her name and search the Notes app under that language, even though the warrant never mentioned photographs. A warrant written around communications can reach photographs and notes, not only message threads.
Many harassment order cases have no seized device at all. The link between an anonymous account and the accused then rests on the content of the messages and on who else had reason to send them. That link can be challenged before the message is admitted, and again in argument to the jury. Patrick J. Murphy defends harassment prevention order charges in the Boston Municipal Court and nearby district courts.
Contact a Boston Lawyer About a Harassment Order Charge
A message from an unknown sender has to be tied to the accused before it proves anything. The Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy represents people charged with violating harassment prevention orders across Boston and Suffolk County. Call (617) 367-0450, any hour, or contact the Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy online to go through the charge at no cost.