Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
A domestic assault and battery charge in Massachusetts has two parts. The Commonwealth must prove the assault and battery itself, and it must also prove a qualifying relationship between the two people involved. An Appeals Court decision issued September 24, 2026, Commonwealth v. Khadgi, shows how the person on trial can end up proving that second part for the prosecution. It is a Cambridge District Court case, and it bears on anyone facing domestic violence charges that are headed toward trial.
When an appeals court asks whether wrongly admitted evidence affected a verdict, it reviews the whole record, including testimony from the person charged. In a domestic case, taking the stand to describe the relationship can supply the element the Commonwealth could not prove with admissible evidence. The appeal will weigh that testimony along with everything else.
A Harvard Square Arrest and a One-Witness Case
Shortly before 2 a.m., a Cambridge police officer walking through Harvard Square saw a man strike a woman in the face and arms 10 to 15 times. He separated them, made the arrest, and called an ambulance. The woman was too upset to speak at first. A few minutes later, while receiving medical care, she told the officer she had been beaten for about eight minutes and that the two had been dating for seven years.
The case was tried to a judge without a jury. The Commonwealth called only the officer. The accused then testified that he had come to bring his girlfriend home, that she hit him first, and that he grabbed her arms while trying to defend himself. He also said the two had lived together for about seven years.
The Relationship Element in a Domestic Assault and Battery Charge
Under G. L. c. 265, § 13M, a family or household member can be a current or former spouse or the other parent of a child. It can also be someone in a current or past substantive dating or engagement relationship with the accused. Whether a dating relationship is substantive is a factual question. The judge or jury looks at how long it lasted, what kind of relationship it was, how often the two saw each other, and how long ago it ended.
The beating itself was never in doubt, since the officer saw it and photographs showed the bruises. The relationship was a different matter. The only evidence of it in the Commonwealth’s case was the woman’s statement to the officer. She never testified. A testimonial statement is one made mainly to establish past events for a later prosecution. The confrontation clause generally keeps such a statement out when the speaker never faces cross-examination. The Appeals Court said the accused had a strong argument that her statement was testimonial. He was already in custody, she was being treated, and the officer had seen everything himself.
How a Trial Decision Settled the Appeal
The court never decided the hearsay question because it found any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It relied on Commonwealth v. Mendes, 463 Mass. 353 (2012), where the Supreme Judicial Court held that the review covers both sides of the case. The accused in Khadgi had called the woman his girlfriend and described seven years under one roof. That testimony proved the relationship on its own. Mendes recognized one narrow exception, for testimony prompted by evidence that was unlawfully seized and should have been suppressed.
For someone preparing for trial on a domestic assault and battery charge, the practical lesson comes before any testimony is given. A self-defense account usually has to explain who the other person is. That explanation can fill the gap in the Commonwealth’s proof. Patrick J. Murphy has defended assault charges in Boston-area district courts since 1994. Before a client testifies, he works out which elements the admissible evidence actually proves.
The relationship element carries real weight at sentencing. Section 13M(d) requires a certified batterer’s intervention program after any violation, and as a condition of a continuance without a finding. The only ways out are specific written findings of good cause by the court, or a finding by the program that the person is unsuitable. A short or casual relationship may also be open to challenge under the statute’s factors.
Contact a Boston Domestic Violence Defense Lawyer Before Trial
Whether to testify is a decision made with the evidence in hand, well before the first question is asked. The Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy defends domestic assault and battery charges in Boston, Cambridge, and the surrounding district courts. Call (617) 367-0450 or contact the office for a free consultation. Attorney Murphy is available 24 hours a day.