1 of 15 DOCUMENTS ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ...

ALM GL ch. 209A, § 7
Page 60
comments he made about his ex-wife were not directed to her, but rather, were directed to a passenger in his vehicle, as
one could not undermine a no contact order by simple expedient of ricocheting prohibited comments off third persons;
the legislature rationally concluded that prohibiting contact, whether or not the contact was itself abusive, sometimes
might be necessary to reduce the likelihood that abuse would occur, under ALM GL c 209A, §§ 3(b), 7. Commonwealth
v. Consoli (2003) 58 Mass App 734, 792 NE2d 1007, 2003 Mass App LEXIS 831, review denied (2003) 440 Mass 1103,
797 NE2d 379, 2003 Mass LEXIS 777.
Court would not dismiss an indictment charging defendant with failing to comply with a protective order, as he was
permanently restrained from contacting his daughter, yet sent her a 21st birthday card; that she was emancipated at the
time was immaterial. Commonwealth v. Aspen (2003) 17 Mass L Rep 182, 2003 Mass Super LEXIS 439.
Defendant's claim that indicting him for violating an ALM GL c 209A order violated due process was not valid
since the protective order had been sufficiently clear to a person of ordinary intelligence to know what conduct was
prohibited and he had fair notice that the permanent order applied to his daughter, whom he contacted despite the order.
Commonwealth v. Aspen (2003) 17 Mass L Rep 182, 2003 Mass Super LEXIS 439.
8. Prosecution; trial
Judgment for contempt under Abuse Prevention Act ( ALM GL c 209A) did not bar Commonwealth on double
jeopardy grounds from prosecuting defendant for same conduct that resulted in contempt, since contempt was civil in
nature. Mahoney v. Commonwealth (1993) 415 Mass 278, 612 NE2d 1175, 1993 Mass LEXIS 276.
Failure to serve defendant with copy of extended abuse prevention order did not deprive District Court of subject
matter jurisdiction and was not required before defendant could be convicted of violating order, where defendant was
served with temporary order at his last and usual place of abode and that order warned that if he failed to appear
extended order may remain in effect. Commonwealth v. Delaney (1997) 425 Mass 587, 682 NE2d 611, 1997 Mass
LEXIS 187, cert den (1998) 522 US 1058, 139 L Ed 2d 655, 118 S Ct 714, 1998 US LEXIS 216.
Where incarcerated defendant received actual notice of scheduled hearing on extension of temporary protective
order which had been granted ex parte, knew order could be extended, and never expressed desire to exercise his right
to be heard, defendant's due process rights were not violated and his conviction for violation of protective order would
be affirmed. Commonwealth v. Henderson (2001) 434 Mass 155, 747 NE2d 659, 2001 Mass LEXIS 213.
Accidental, mistaken, or unknowing violations of distance requirements of abuse prevention order are not
prosecuted under ALM GL c 209A, § 7. Commonwealth v. Finase (2001) 435 Mass 310, 757 NE2d 721, 2001 Mass
LEXIS 642.
Defendant was entitled to hearing pursuant to ALM GL c 218, § 35A prior to issuance of misdemeanor complaint
against him for alleged violation of abuse prevention order; judge's dismissal of complaint without prejudice affirmed.
Commonwealth v. Tripolone (1997) 44 Mass App 23, 686 NE2d 1325, 1997 Mass App LEXIS 247.
Directive of first justice of District Court to clerk magistrate that complaint for violation of ALM GL c 209A abuse
prevention order should automatically issue without hearing conflicted directly with statutory requirement for hearing
unless exception set forth in statute is available. Commonwealth v. Tripolone (1997) 44 Mass App 23, 686 NE2d 1325,
1997 Mass App LEXIS 247.
Defendant's motion for required finding of not guilty on charge of violating extended ALM GL c 209A order
should have been allowed because Commonwealth failed to establish that defendant was served with copy of order or
had actual knowledge of its existence and terms. Commonwealth v. Molloy (1998) 44 Mass App 306, 690 NE2d 836,
1998 Mass App LEXIS 29, review denied (1998) 427 Mass 1107, 699 NE2d 851, 1998 Mass LEXIS 452.
Where defendant was served with abuse prevention order but not with copy of complaint and did not appear to