Opinion
14-P-253
05-13-2015
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
The defendant, William L. Junkins, Jr., was convicted of violating an abuse prevention order. On appeal, he argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he contacted, or attempted to contact through a third person, the person named in the abuse prevention order.
The Commonwealth presented evidence that the day after service of the restraining order on the defendant, he contacted Flora, the aunt of Heather -- whose name was the same as the person named in the order -- and asked Flora to ask Heather not to post anything about "this restraining order" on "Facebook" or other social media. The evidence permitted the inference that the Heather the defendant indirectly contacted was the same Heather named in the order.
We omit last names in the interest of privacy.
Moreover, the defendant testified that he was unaware that by contacting Heather through her aunt Flora he was violating the restraining order. Given this admission, together with the overwhelming evidence outlined above, the conviction of the defendant was warranted.
For these reasons as well as for substantially those in the brief of the Commonwealth, we affirm the judgment.
So ordered.
By the Court (Kantrowitz, Blake & Massing, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
--------
Clerk Entered: May 13, 2015.