Opinion
11-P-2148
12-11-2012
COMMONWEALTH v. ANGELA D. HALL.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 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.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
After a District Court bench trial, the defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct in connection with an incident that took place within and outside the Waltham District Court, on June 24, 2009. She appeals, claiming that the Commonwealth failed to establish that she engaged in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior, or created a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act which served no legitimate purpose of hers. See Commonwealth v. Chou, 433 Mass. 229, 231-232 (2001). We affirm.
Two police officers testified that the defendant became very agitated during a hearing and remained so as she left the court house -- yelling that her daughter had been 'gang raped' and that the Waltham police were not doing anything about it because they were racist. They described the defendant as screaming hysterically, waving her finger at one of the officers, flailing, and being excessively and unreasonably noisy both in the court house and after she moved outside -- thereby attracting a crowd of onlookers. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677-678 (1979), a rational trier of fact could find that the defendant's behavior was tumultuous and, therefore, punishable as disorderly conduct. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sholley, 432 Mass. 721, 730 (2000). Cases relied upon by the defendant are distinguishable on their facts. Judgment affirmed.
We appreciate that there might have been other options, short of arresting and prosecuting the distraught defendant for disorderly conduct. However, our only proper concern is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain her conviction.
By the Court (Cohen, Katzmann & Wolohojian, JJ.),