Opinion
19-P-1036
07-06-2020
COMMONWEALTH v. LEONARDO MEDINA, JR.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as 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 23.0 or 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 23.0
Following a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant was convicted of assault and battery in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13A. On appeal, the defendant argues that the conviction should be vacated because the trial judge improperly denied his motion for a required finding of not guilty made at the close of the Commonwealth's case and again at the close of all the evidence. As the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence on each element of the crime charged, and the evidence did not thereafter deteriorate, we affirm.
Discussion. We review the record to determine "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the [Commonwealth], any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 677 (1979), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 (1979). "To prove a violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13A, when the battery at issue is offensive (as opposed to harmful), the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, without justification or excuse, intentionally touched the victim, and that the touching, however slight, occurred without the victim's consent." Commonwealth v. Hartnett, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 467, 476 (2008).
In the present case, the victim testified that she had gone out to dinner with the defendant and the two returned to his apartment. The defendant began drinking alcohol and using heroin and subsequently became loud, aggressive, angry, and violent. The defendant pushed the victim, threw her on the bed, threw her around the room, ripped off her clothing and necklace, punched her repeatedly in the head and side, and threw her into the closet and then back on the bed. The assault went on for one-half hour, during which the victim begged the defendant to stop. The defendant told the victim that he should kill her and that no one was going to help. This was more than sufficient to prove a nonconsensual touching. See Hartnett, 72 Mass. App. Ct. at 476.
The defendant argues nevertheless that the victim's testimony was insufficient because it was uncorroborated by physical or documentary evidence -- for example, visible injuries or medical records. Additionally, he argues that the circumstances suggested that no assault had occurred because the defendant met the police when they responded to the incident (rather than fleeing the scene) and stated that he wanted the victim to leave his apartment. Further, a defense investigator called the victim sometime after the incident, and (according to the investigator) the victim indicated that the altercation had been strictly verbal.
There was evidence that the victim was taken to the hospital after the incident. Although the responding police officer did not observe any physical injuries on the victim at the time, he testified that sometimes injuries will not be visible and sometimes they will become visible later in time.
The police found the victim in a neighbor's apartment only partially clothed, hysterically crying and speaking to herself saying, "[H]e beat me, he beat me." The victim was visibly distraught and hyperventilating.
The victim did not recall speaking with a defense investigator and denied telling anyone that the incident had been strictly verbal.
The defendant's arguments on appeal amount to a challenge to the jury's determinations concerning witness credibility and weight of the evidence. The victim's testimony alone was sufficient for the case to go to the jury. Whether the victim's testimony had corroboration, whether the defendant's behavior was consistent with her account, and whether the victim may have made statements inconsistent with her trial testimony, these were all matters reserved for the fact finder and not properly considered on a motion for a required finding of not guilty. See Commonwealth v. Pugh, 462 Mass 482, 494-495 (2012); Commonwealth v. Ruci, 409 Mass. 94, 97 (1991). See also Commonwealth v. Gomez, 450 Mass. 704, 710-711 (2008) (Commonwealth's case cannot deteriorate based solely on credibility of defense witnesses). The motions for a required finding of not guilty were properly denied.
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Sacks, Singh, & McDonough, JJ),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
/s/
Clerk Entered: July 6, 2020.