1 of 15 DOCUMENTS ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS ...

ALM GL ch. 209A, § 7
Page 61
contest extension of order, any error in failing to serve defendant with complaint was harmless. Commonwealth v.
Munafo (1998) 45 Mass App 597, 700 NE2d 556, 1998 Mass App LEXIS 1107, review denied (1998) 428 Mass 1110,
707 NE2d 1078, 1998 Mass LEXIS 802.
Commonwealth met its burden of proving defendant's knowledge of existence of extended restraining order, where
it could be inferred reasonably from order and officer's return of service that service was made either by delivering
extended order in hand to defendant or by leaving it at his last and usual address. Commonwealth v. Crimmins (1999)
46 Mass App 489, 707 NE2d 832, 1999 Mass App LEXIS 318.
Where defendant was in court when ALM GL c 209A order was obtained and return of service showed that copy of
original order had been served on him, and victim testified she told defendant he was not supposed to call, evidence was
sufficient to show that defendant had actual knowledge of order's terms. Commonwealth v. Mendonca (2001) 50 Mass
App 684, 740 NE2d 1034, 2001 Mass App LEXIS 6, review denied (2001) 434 Mass 1101, 751 NE2d 418, 2001 Mass
LEXIS 236.
To establish that defendant violated restraining order issued pursuant to ALM GL c 209A, § 7, Commonwealth must
prove that (1) there was valid restraining order, (2) defendant knew of order, and (3) defendant violated order.
Commonwealth v. Rauseo (2001) 50 Mass App 699, 740 NE2d 1053, 2001 Mass App LEXIS 22, review denied (2001)
434 Mass 1102, 751 NE2d 419, 2001 Mass LEXIS 275.
Defendant's conviction for violation of an order under ALM GL c 209A, § 7 was reversed where the Commonwealth
failed to prove that he was served with the order by any means that satisfied the dictates of due process, and further, that
he had knowledge of the terms of the order; it was also shown that the Commonwealth had failed to allege facts that
would have put defendant on notice to conduct a reasonably inquiry into the facts, as the victim's testimony regarding
her conversations with defendant did not affirmatively indicate that he had been informed of the terms of the order.
Commonwealth v. Welch (2003) 58 Mass App 408, 790 NE2d 718, 2003 Mass App LEXIS 707.
9. --Evidence
Hearsay statements attributed to defendant's son by complainant warranted finding that complainant was in fear of
imminent serious physical harm from defendant (defendant told son he should use toy sword to slit his mother's throat).
Flynn v. Warner (1995) 421 Mass 1002, 654 NE2d 926, 1995 Mass LEXIS 358.
At trial of defendant for violating protective order issued under ALM GL c 209A, defendant was prejudiced by
admission of evidence of events that provided basis for issuance of 209A order, where only issue was one of credibility
as to whether defendant appeared at his mother's house on particular day. Commonwealth v. Picariello (1996) 40 Mass
App 902, 660 NE2d 1102, 1996 Mass App LEXIS 25, review denied (1996) 422 Mass 1107, 664 NE2d 1197.
In prosecution for stalking, violating domestic protective order and trespassing, evidence of defendant's prior
uncharged acts of violence against complainant and daughter of complainant and defendant, his previous incarceration,
his giving of false name to police upon arrest, and his violation of "stay away" provision of protective order was either
properly admitted, not objected to, or not prejudicial to defendant. Commonwealth v. Martinez (1997) 43 Mass App
408, 683 NE2d 699, 1997 Mass App LEXIS 188, review denied (1997) 426 Mass 1103, 687 NE2d 643, 1997 Mass
LEXIS 546.
At trial of defendant for violation of abuse prevention order, there was no error in admission of certified copy of
original order indicating on its face that it had been modified, and it was not unfair to place on defendant burden of
alerting judge to substance of modifications. Commonwealth v. Rauseo (2001) 50 Mass App 699, 740 NE2d 1053, 2001
Mass App LEXIS 22, review denied (2001) 434 Mass 1102, 751 NE2d 419, 2001 Mass LEXIS 275.
Defendant was convicted of violating an abuse prevention order issued under ALM GL c 209A, § 7, by going to a
residence where he and the victim used to live. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call defendant as a