Articles Posted in Domestic Violence

In Massachusetts criminal trials, evidence presented by the state must be relevant to the case, but not all relevant evidence is automatically admissible. The court must weigh whether the evidence’s probative value—its ability to prove something important—is greater than its potential to unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendant. Certain evidence does not have enough probative value to counteract the risk of unfair prejudice to a defendant, so the Rules of Evidence may prohibit its admission.

A recent appellate decision involved a defendant convicted of domestic violence. The prosecution had evidence of other uncharged violent acts by the defendant against the victim, which they argued was relevant to show the defendant’s intent and the hostile nature of the relationship. The defendant objected, claiming this evidence would unfairly bias the jury against him. The trial court decided to exclude some of this evidence while allowing other parts in. The jury, after hearing the admitted evidence, convicted the defendant, who then appealed the decision, arguing that the inclusion of the prior bad acts was prejudicial and should have been excluded entirely.

In Massachusetts, the rules regarding the admission of prior bad acts are specific. Such evidence can be allowed if it helps demonstrate a common pattern, intent, or absence of mistake, but it must be carefully weighed against the potential for undue prejudice. In this case, the trial judge provided instructions to the jury to limit the impact of the prior bad acts evidence, emphasizing that it should not be used to infer the defendant’s bad character but rather to consider specific aspects like intent or motive. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, noting that the instructions were clear and effective in mitigating any potential prejudice. They further noted that the jury’s ability to acquit the defendant of some charges indicated they were not unduly swayed by the prior bad acts evidence.

In certain instances, a person charged with a Massachusetts criminal offense may wish to appeal a court ruling before his or her case has gone to trial and resulted in a final conviction. Such appeals of intermediate rulings, known as interlocutory appeals, can be useful in preventing a defendant’s rights from being infringed upon before a trial, which could place the defendant at a potentially irreparable disadvantage at trial. The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently addressed an interlocutory appeal filed by a Massachusetts man who had been charged with several crimes involving domestic violence.

The defendant who filed the recently decided appeal is a Massachusetts man who was charged with several alleged crimes that occurred over the course of a few months and involved the same victim, who was a domestic partner of the defendant. Prosecutors sought to try the defendant for all of the alleged crimes in a single trial, claiming that the alleged crimes were interconnected enough for them to be tried together. The defendant opposed the prosecution’s motion, asking the court to hear the charges separately.

The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to join the charges, resulting in the defendant filing an interlocutory appeal with the state supreme court. Arguing that he would be prejudiced by charging the alleged crimes together, the defendant attempted to have the trial judge’s decision to grant the motion reversed. In a summary and unpublished opinion, the high court rejected the defendant’s appeal. Under Massachusetts law, interlocutory appeals in criminal cases are limited to scenarios in which the defendant would be unfairly prejudiced by a court’s failure to consider an error before a final judgment was issued. In this instance, the court decided that the trial court’s decision to grant the prosecution’s motion, if erroneous, could be appealed if and after the defendant is convicted of the alleged crimes, and he will not suffer any prejudice by waiting until after trial to make such an appeal. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, the defendant’s trial will proceed without further interruption.

In Commonwealth v. Jones, the appellate court considered a case in which the defendant was convicted of violating M.G.L. c. 265, § 13M, assault and battery on a family member. In 2015, the defendant and his wife were at home. The wife was using the husband’s cell phone to get some information for him, and she saw that he’d been texting with a woman. When she mentioned it to the husband, he got angry. They went to dinner for their anniversary and returned to their bedroom afterward.

The husband lay down, but the wife watched television. She saw that the husband’s cell phone was receiving text messages and that it kept beeping. The text message said, “I made money.” She woke up her husband to ask about the text, and the defendant jumped up and grabbed her neck with his hands, squeezing. Later at trial, the wife testified that this was common for him—jumping out of bed and getting verbally abusive. She went to a dollar store nearby and called her mom. The defendant called her and asked that she come home.

The wife told him she didn’t like the texts she’d seen and asked for an explanation. She called 911. An officer came to her at the dollar store, and another officer went to the defendant’s home. The husband was charged, and the wife testified against him, explaining that he’d sometimes gotten violent with her, sending her to the floor.

Continue reading

As discussed in prior blog posts, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed Senate Bill 2334 in August. The bill created new criminal charges related to domestic violence. It amends chapter 265 to create two new crimes: assault and battery on household members as well as suffocation and strangulation.

Under the new bill, a conviction for first-time assault or assault and battery on a “family or household member” may result in a sentence of two and a half years of imprisonment in the house of correction and a fine of up to $5,000. Family and household members are those people who are married, those who have a child together, and those who are engaged or in a “substantive dating relationship.” The court must also order a convicted defendant to complete a certified batterer’s intervention program, unless it makes written findings that show good cause why this requirement need not be met.

The bill also created a new crime of strangulation or suffocation of any other individual and aggravated strangulation. In the past, strangulation or suffocation could be charged as either felony attempted murder or as simple assault and battery. The new law recognizes that in domestic violence contexts, one partner may strangle the other not to kill the victim, but in order to exert dominance and cause pain and panic that can be used to control the victim. The person committing the strangulation is trying to torture the victim, rather than attempt to murder him or her. However a prosecutor’s only alternative to charging attempted murder was to charge “simple assault and battery.” This is only a misdemeanor, rather than a felony.
Continue reading

As we previously noted on this blog, in August, Governor Patrick signed the “Act Relative to Domestic Violence,” which changes the law with regard to many aspects of domestic abuse cases. Since it was an emergency act, the provisions took immediate effect. In Massachusetts, domestic violence includes not only physical acts but also attempts to create fear of imminent serious physical harm or rape between family or household members. Family and household members, for purposes of evaluating whether domestic violence is involved, include people who are married or living together, who are related by blood or marriage, who have children together, or who have dated or are dating.

One of the significant changes introduced by the new law involves what is called a “dangerousness hearing,” authorized by Section 58A. This hearing is usually requested by a prosecutor during the arraignment and heard 3-7 days later.

Traditionally, at the dangerousness hearing the prosecutor would present evidence to show the defendant presented an imminent danger to the community and there were no less restrictive means than imprisonment that would ensure the community remained safe. The defense attorney would be able to respond by presenting evidence that there were less restrictive methods than imprisonment to make sure the community is safe. This meant that the defense attorney would summon witnesses, such as the victim who may not have wanted a spouse to stay incarcerated, to contest the prosecutor’s claim that holding the defendant without bail was appropriate.
Continue reading

In Massachusetts, domestic violence is a crime that includes not only physical harm but also attempts to cause physical harm, triggering fear of imminent serious physical harm or involuntary sexual relations between family or household members. Family and household members include people who are married, are living together, are related by blood or marriage, have children together, or are dating or have dated. In August 2014, Massachusetts Governor Patrick signed a new emergency law known as “Act Relative to Domestic Violence,” which changes the arraignment, bail, detention, and criminal penalties in domestic violence cases. The impact on arraignment is especially significant.

Generally in Massachusetts, a defendant is entitled to a prompt arraignment under Mass. R. Crim. P. 7(a)(1) and a 1996 case known as Commonwealth v. Rosario. Under the former, an arrested defendant is to be brought for arraignment before the court if it is in session already, but if it is not, the defendant is to be brought for arraignment at the next session. Any defendant who receives a summons or has been arrested but is released will be ordered to appear before the court on a certain date.

However, under the new law, if you are charged with a crime involving domestic abuse or strangulation, you are prevented from being released within six hours of being arrested, unless the judge sets bail in open court. The six-hour period is considered a “cooling off” period during which the situation can be de-escalated and the victim gets time to look for safety.
Continue reading