Lieutenant King completed the information required by the court's form of a temporary order (the 209A order) and, with the papers in hand, went to his office and called a judge. The affidavit described the assault and battery, and named the defendant in the accompanying complaint as her assailant. 209A, Section 4, and an affidavit in support of the complaint. Whalen later signed a complaint for protection from abuse, see G. she was crying on-and-off and she was frightened." Officer Eysie, together with Lieutenant King, spoke to Whalen in the conference room. He saw that Whalen was "teary-eyed, and I also observed her left wrist to be red and swollen. Officer David Eysie was at the Norwood police station when Whalen arrived. Burke helped Whalen into the police station, gave the police his name and phone number, and left. Up to this point, Whalen had not identified her "boyfriend."Ībout fifteen minutes had elapsed between the time Burke first saw Whalen and the time they arrived at the police station. Whalen, in her own car, followed Burke to the police station. Burke then asked her if she would like to go to the police station. and she was very frightened." Whalen told Burke that "her boyfriend had grabbed her wrist, and that she had had a previous injury, and she said he was aware of it, and had hurt her in that manner." Burke asked her if she wanted to go to the hospital she declined. Burke stopped his car, and asked Whalen what had happened, in response to which she "just came out - she came out and blurted out the statement that `My boyfriend just beat me up.'" Burke saw that Whalen had puffy eyes, "she had been crying for some time. She was crying, very upset, and very dishevelled. She was holding one hand with her other hand. The victim, Kathleen Whalen, was standing on the sidewalk in front of the parked car. On October 5, 1993, about 4:15 P.M., John Burke was driving on East Hoyle Street in Norwood when he came upon a car parked perpendicular to the sidewalk in an area where cars are usually parked parallel to the sidewalk. The judge could have found the following facts on the Commonwealth's evidence. We decide was erroneously admitted at trial, we conclude that no rational trier of fact could have found an essential element of the crime charged - the identity of the victim's assailant - beyond a reasonable doubt, see Commonwealth v. After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, but disregarding evidence He claims the judge erred in denying his motion for a required finding of not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth's case. 265, Section 13A, after a jury-waived trial in the jury session of the Dedham District Court. The defendant appeals from his conviction of assault and battery, G. Kelley, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. On appeal to the jury session of that court, the case was heard by Paul F. Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the matter was remanded for aĬOMPLAINT received and sworn to in the Dedham Division of the District Court Department on October 6, 1993. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 209A, Section 4, for protection from abuse: theĭefendant's conviction was in violation of the confrontation clauses of Solely of extrajudicial statements in an affidavit in support of aĬomplaint under G. Identity of the person who assaulted the victim where it consisted Testimony of what the victim had said, where there were sufficientĮvidence at the trial of a criminal case was not competent to establish the 225 SeptemNorfolk County Present: DREBEN, GILLERMAN, & IRELAND, JJ.Īt the trial of a complaint for assault and battery, the judge did notĪbuse his discretion in admitting as a spontaneous utterance certain
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |