21.01.2015 Views

1 of 15 DOCUMENTS ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ...

1 of 15 DOCUMENTS ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ...

1 of 15 DOCUMENTS ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ALM GL ch. 209A, § 3<br />

Page 22<br />

Commonwealth v. Butler (1996) 40 Mass App 906, 661 NE2d 666, 1996 Mass App LEXIS 99.<br />

Defendant's motion for required finding <strong>of</strong> not guilty on charge <strong>of</strong> violating extended ALM GL c 209A order<br />

should have been allowed because Commonwealth failed to establish that defendant was served with copy <strong>of</strong> order or<br />

had actual knowledge <strong>of</strong> its existence and terms. Commonwealth v. Molloy (1998) 44 Mass App 306, 690 NE2d 836,<br />

1998 Mass App LEXIS 29, review denied (1998) 427 Mass 1107, 699 NE2d 851, 1998 Mass LEXIS 452.<br />

Domestic protective order may contain one or more <strong>of</strong> following restraints: (a) refrain from abusing complainant;<br />

(b) refrain from contacting complainant; and (c) vacate forthwith and remain away from household, multiple family<br />

dwelling, and workplace. Commonwealth v. Johnson (1998) 45 Mass App 473, 700 NE2d 270, 1998 Mass App LEXIS<br />

1031.<br />

Where domestic protective order forbade defendant from abusing complainant but judge's instructions to jury stated<br />

that Commonwealth had to prove that defendant violated order by abusing and/or contacting her, instruction was<br />

erroneous, and although defendant did not object to instruction, error created substantial risk <strong>of</strong> miscarriage <strong>of</strong> justice in<br />

light <strong>of</strong> admitted evidence that while incarcerated defendant sent complainant over 300 letters. Commonwealth v.<br />

Johnson (1998) 45 Mass App 473, 700 NE2d 270, 1998 Mass App LEXIS 1031.<br />

Three convictions <strong>of</strong> defendant for threatening to commit crime (murder, assault and battery, and malicious damage<br />

to property) were not duplicative <strong>of</strong> conviction <strong>of</strong> violation <strong>of</strong> domestic protective order, and judge could impose<br />

consecutive sentences on each threatening charge to run on and after two and one-half year sentence for violating<br />

protective order. Commonwealth v. Johnson (1998) 45 Mass App 473, 700 NE2d 270, 1998 Mass App LEXIS 1031.<br />

Evidence from complainant that defendant had physically abused her at least eight or nine times previously was<br />

admissible at trial <strong>of</strong> defendant for violating domestic protective order because it was probative <strong>of</strong> defendant's hostility<br />

toward complainant and his pattern <strong>of</strong> acting on that hostility and <strong>of</strong> complainant's fear that defendant would harm her.<br />

Commonwealth v. Johnson (1998) 45 Mass App 473, 700 NE2d 270, 1998 Mass App LEXIS 1031.<br />

"No contact" provision in abuse prevention order did not violate defendant's right <strong>of</strong> free speech. Commonwealth v.<br />

Thompson (1998) 45 Mass App 523, 699 NE2d 847, 1998 Mass App LEXIS 1040, review denied (1998) 428 Mass 1108,<br />

707 NE2d 366, 1998 Mass LEXIS 739.<br />

Where judge realized need for former wife to establish that she feared imminent serious physical harm from former<br />

husband and transcript contained inaudible portions <strong>of</strong> former wife's testimony that may have described her fear <strong>of</strong><br />

repeat <strong>of</strong> past physical harm, appellate court would not disturb judge's issuance <strong>of</strong> protective order, especially since as<br />

appellant former husband did not furnish appellate court with all evidence and did not utilize procedure to repair<br />

inaudible portions <strong>of</strong> transcript. Wooldridge v. Hickey (1998) 45 Mass App 637, 700 NE2d 296, 1998 Mass App LEXIS<br />

1112.<br />

Where evidence was that former husband subjected children to verbal harassment and hit son and grabbed him<br />

when angry, evidence <strong>of</strong> imminent serious physical harm to children was lacking; order for former husband to stay<br />

away from children vacated. Wooldridge v. Hickey (1998) 45 Mass App 637, 700 NE2d 296, 1998 Mass App LEXIS<br />

1112.<br />

Where judge conducted evidentiary hearings and took evidence from both parties before making 209A restraining<br />

order permanent, defendant was not denied fair hearing. Pike v. Maguire (1999) 47 Mass App 929, 716 NE2d 686,<br />

1999 Mass App LEXIS 1081.<br />

Permanent extension <strong>of</strong> 209A abuse prevention order was justified by former wife's genuine fear <strong>of</strong> defendant for<br />

five years, which arose from defendant's past abusive acts, recent smashing <strong>of</strong> windshield <strong>of</strong> family car, and defendant's<br />

agitated conduct in court. Pike v. Maguire (1999) 47 Mass App 929, 716 NE2d 686, 1999 Mass App LEXIS 1081.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!