Opinion
14-P-329
06-25-2015
COMMONWEALTH v. SOEUTH PATH.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Nothing has been made to appear that would cause us to reverse the defendant's conviction of violating an abuse prevention order. See G. L. c. 209A, § 7, as amended by St. 2006, c. 418, § 1.
On April 8, 2010, Officer Luiz Rios of the Lowell police department was dispatched to the victim's residence at 78 Mt. Washington Street in Lowell. Upon arrival, Officer Rios was provided with a copy of the victim's abuse prevention order against the defendant. The abuse prevention order, issued by the Lowell Division of the District Court Department on November 16, 2009, and extended on December 1, 2009, until December 1, 2010, ordered the defendant "to stay at least 100 yards from the Plaintiff even if the Plaintiff seems to allow or request contact" and "TO IMMEDIATELY LEAVE AND STAY AWAY FROM THE PLAINTIFF'S RESIDENCE . . . ." After searching the house, Officer Rios found the defendant inside a bedroom of the residence and placed him under arrest for violating the abuse prevention order.
Criminal liability attaches for violating an abuse prevention order. See G. L. c. 209A, § 7. The defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the victim had been complicit in the defendant residing at the victim's residence prior to the April 8, 2010, call to the police misses the mark. Sufficiency of evidence is a question for the fact finder. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-678 (1979). Here, the jury could have reasonably concluded that the defendant violated the abuse prevention order as he was physically present at the victim's residence at the time of arrest. See Commonwealth v. Gordon, 407 Mass. 340, 344-348 (1990). In Gordon, supra, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the defendant's "visit" to the victim's residence, even though he was given permission to visit by the victim, constituted a violation of the abuse prevention order.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Grainger, Brown & Milkey, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
Clerk Entered: June 25, 2015.