[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6090334,"mediaKeyId","2867643-a3dc31a00d8a3545b18da68caea2b58d","parentId",2867643,"title","Appeals court questions whether public \"affray\" requires bystander fear beyond victim's alarm","audioSeconds",938,"startMs",128000,"endMs",1066000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2867643-a3dc31a00d8a3545b18da68caea2b58d&start=128&end=1066","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2867643-a3dc31a00d8a3545b18da68caea2b58d/thumbnail_128000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6090334/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-questions-whether-public-affray-requires-bystander-fear-beyond-victims-alarm","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6090334-ffb886ef0191bbf8378e7ee8645a69c9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770924399&Signature=UbVujfWsXdTrVg7oPHpYEBuLxHlLqw3UDylpHTRGgoF8SLZtdWpj5C2fGLgzAP-1QYaOV6BYy68dc7nlYMuOgT90naCi2nc5eNwwu3hR92k5ZHGukgcM2JbOYrtFLS~3Q6zrQ56p5bVtzuym8eSo4viHlV0RXVCbSLBX7KWsapN715qTb1h0TWx2gnhpOg0Er-nvO75OWVnTz4HkJsEgGtsWsVy1cGJXWBpX-HdKTFFrJ4UUHkjkWj6rVkFSG9fdI7oqnMreMUAPqLxcgDZUUSiwhWHH4U3kbdf5uwqnXIB4SXZv~p-mSY7Fm-mwbA~bKIflyl9GGZLii8X2AD3ezg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-04T00:07:27.417Z","article","Panel justices at the Massachusetts Appeals Court on April 3 debated the scope of the criminal charge of affray in Commonwealth v. Dobson, focusing on whether the Commonwealth had to prove that someone other than the direct victim was actually placed in fear.

The defendant\u0000\u0000\u0000represented by Tim St. Lawrence\u0000argued the evidence was legally insufficient. \"I don't think that would be a reasonable inference enough to carry the weight of proof beyond a reasonable doubt,\" St. Lawrence told the panel when asked whether the mere presence of bystanders could support an inference they were placed in fear. He said the recorded video and witness behavior could reflect inconvenience or other innocent explanations rather than fear.

The Commonwealth\u0000represented by Charles Marshall and joined at argument by trial prosecutor Max Robidoux\u0000countered that the video of a daytime attack at a busy bus station and testimony about bystanders justified a jury inference that a member of the public was put in fear. \"The video is the clearest and most helpful part of that evidence,\" Marshall said, urging the court that a person shown to pause or divert their path during a violent assault could reasonably be inferred to have been alarmed.

Why it matters: The court wrestled with whether longstanding precedents and model jury instructions require proof that a nonparticipant member of the public was placed in fear. Defense counsel pressed the panel to read cases such as Nee narrowly; prosecutors cited case law and the factual record to justify submitting the charge to a jury under the standard for sufficiency of the evidence.

Supporters and critics of broader readings of the affray statute warned the panel of slippery slopes. The justices repeatedly probed hypotheticals \u0000 two teens fighting in a parking lot or an officer intervening \u0000 to refine where the line is drawn between ordinary public disturbance and the public-crime element of affray.

During argument, counsel and panelists discussed whether words used across precedents\u0000\"alarm,\" \"fear,\" and \"terror\"\u0000have different legal weight and whether the Legislature or the courts should narrow the doctrine. Counsel acknowledged divergent solutions across jurisdictions and the potential impact of the court\u0000s ruling on future prosecutions of public disturbances.

The court did not rule from the bench; the case was submitted after argument.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, April 3, 2025, Massing, Englander, D'Angelo, JJ., presiding","oneSentenceSummary","Panel justices at the Massachusetts Appeals Court on April 3 debated in Commonwealth v. Dobson whether the Commonwealth must prove that a member of the public\u0000not merely a direct victim\u0000was placed in fear to sustain an affray conviction.","taxTitle","Judicial - Appeals Court Oral Arguments, Judicial, Massachusetts","taxId",66294,"location","Massachusetts","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6090330,"Appeals argument in gun-possession appeal centers on certified records and whether defendant must know licensing rule",440,2030000,2470000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2867643-a3dc31a00d8a3545b18da68caea2b58d&start=2030&end=2470","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2867643-a3dc31a00d8a3545b18da68caea2b58d/thumbnail_2030000.jpg","/articles/6090330/Massachusetts/Appeals-argument-in-gun-possession-appeal-centers-on-certified-records-and-whether-defendant-must-know-licensing-rule","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6090330-59cac911707ceac34bc07ddba41c7adb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770924399&Signature=OSvt5xROc645kb6vOnmjOYaFvzVictrw1rDhjw1X6GAHEY7lYWVMLaRj40HUbW0wuGUK0v3JNBrKQ4aGK60nq5NH5II16a6OEJ-dmne5bAWHy~Chx-pMf56BMsKBaCqNPE~lLP5X3chehrfhdZkx7Pocgua5gZ3x2~uFFaI9MWT34fjnihH6N4Mu12ogrFzpP53bJDovCCn9CFiHDln1I3rjYl0AbsP-Q-CDRlv2Lhu4MZj8md2O12BKKrbEDr4ApdTFJ~~KVWAax0GS0rxjFjkdvw3GTZzHTAknV-ccNMry6uC0yPZEX5oncMOKxwDBX4e9YA9i49iSAy00-uJbGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Massachusetts Appeals Court on April 3 heard argument in the appeal of Jose Shaw\u0000raising two separate but related questions: whether a district-court docket copy admitted at trial was properly attested, and whether the statutory mens rea word \"knowingly\" applies to the licensing element of the firearm-possession statute, G.L. c. 140, \u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000(10A).

Defense counsel Haley Jacobson argued the documentary record should not have been admitted because the copy lacked the required attestation: \"Neither the seal nor the signature certify that the signer compared the copy with the original,\" Jacobson told the panel, citing Duramo/Dorama and Black\u0000s Law for the proposition that an \"attestation\" requires a signed certification that a copy is true and correct.

The Commonwealth\u0000argued through Arne Hansen and other counsel that a raised court seal and the clerk-magistrate signature satisfied authentication rules and that, in any event, the defence had not shown prejudice from the asserted error. \"If the court were to adopt the defendant's proposition ... we're essentially decriminalizing illegal possession of firearm,\" Hansen warned, arguing that requiring proof that a defendant knew about the licensing requirement would effectively prevent prosecutions.

On the mens rea issue, Jacobson pressed that the insertion of the word \"knowingly\" into the statutory text after earlier decisions counseled a reading that it should apply to the licensing element. She invoked statutory-presumption principles and Supreme Court decisions addressing when ignorance of law may be excused, including citations to Lindem cases such as Ruan and Liberato analogies. Hansen and the Commonwealth replied that Marrero and later decisions limit the reach of a general mens rea term and that the state's licensing and possession framework is better read to require knowledge only as to possession.

Why it matters: The court\u0000s decision could affect whether prosecutors must prove a defendant knew of the licensing requirement before a conviction under the firearms statute and will also resolve whether routine clerk-court records admitted at sentencing or enhancement proceedings require a stricter attestation practice to be used as proof of prior convictions.

The panel questioned whether an objection at trial would have allowed a district judge to cure an attestation defect mid-trial; defense counsel said the record did not show stipulation. The court also discussed practical consequences if \"knowingly\" were read broadly: counsel argued it would make convictions harder to obtain, while the Commonwealth argued the proposal was inconsistent with statutory structure and relevant precedent. The case was submitted after argument.

","At oral argument the Appeals Court weighed whether a district-court docket admitted at trial met attestation requirements and whether the word \"knowingly\" in the firearm-possession statute extends to the licensing element, potentially requiring proof a defendant knew a license was required.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6090314,"Sibling dispute over life-insurance beneficiary turns on digital evidence and discovery battles",2710,8030000,10740000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2867643-a3dc31a00d8a3545b18da68caea2b58d&start=8030&end=10740","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2867643-a3dc31a00d8a3545b18da68caea2b58d/thumbnail_8030000.jpg","/articles/6090314/Massachusetts/Sibling-dispute-over-life-insurance-beneficiary-turns-on-digital-evidence-and-discovery-battles","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6090314-8a0a7e6a2eed169d4eeed8bdd65c487c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770924399&Signature=KYSapM3cLpWVuOI1Rn0jGVTJmedLzzS~iS8M1S-EtEWrpFijLiLSKA57Vj-t6HeUha1ig0TcLhEXlkNX2myJmPEQ6gcwqgAWfPE7T5aGXM7W-Q7ZHpMysSNDpttexWYOI-Yq1OSEHk-TAEhZX8e2h7ZeljKjPWUsiAr6nIF25HfkPqQusP~~npA8m72CGaQjs~wfqnLHutBoJyo0tNJB~H5VWkLKGDnXzWTDWljF0y3AG~tRdQP8XsBytKRMaKH0rbk~Bi4Cm-ns9Jxnvo~TABRGvxMEUjdKw~FASI8Po~Su7iKYBmaGaZNQO4bj1ZBk~3MBzUm2J2YMhJAdWCnvVA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court on April 3 heard argument in Posner v. Hilton, a civil appeal driven by allegations that a beneficiary change to a decedent\u0000s life insurance and retirement accounts was fraudulent and that discovery was obstructed.

Anna and James Hilton\u0000pro se in parts of the lower-court litigation and arguing now as appellants\u0000told the panel they were thwarted in discovery when the named defendant, Marion Hilliard, retained or removed physical devices and declined to produce certain hard drives and other materials. The Hiltons said they remotely accessed some Google account records using a password Hilliard wrote down after the decedent\u0000s death and that Google Maps metadata showed the decedent\u0000s location at a time inconsistent with Hilliard\u0000s asserted access to employer portals.

Hilliard\u0000represented by Pamela Pardo\u0000and her counsel contended the record contains no evidence that Hilliard submitted the beneficiary-designation forms to Life Insurance Company of North America or to Fidelity in 2019. \"There's no evidence,\" Pardo told the panel when pressed about what the Hiltons proffered to show Hilliard made the changes.

The court pressed technical questions. The Hiltons\u0000who described using a password recorded by Hilliard to access a Google account\u0000argued a Google \"My Activity\" screenshot showing a map box and a timestamp supports an inference the decedent was driving and could not have submitted a change minutes later from work. The panel asked whether expert authentication would be required to tie browser logs and timestamps to a specific user and whether the Hiltons had preserved such expert proof below; the panel noted a motion in limine had limited expert evidence.

Why it matters: The dispute centers on (1) whether electronic audit trails and metadata can create genuine issues for trial about who acted on online portals to change beneficiary designations, and (2) whether discovery orders and the special master\u0000s rulings below prevented the Hiltons from obtaining material evidence. The case implicates authentication rules for electronic evidence and routine discovery practice for digital records.

The court took the appeal under advisement after extended argument.","In a civil appeal over alleged fraudulent beneficiary changes, sibling appellants told the Appeals Court April 3 they were blocked from vital digital discovery and that Google account metadata created a disputed timeline; the named defendant said the record contains no proof she submitted the 2019 beneficiary changes.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6090319,"Appeals court urged to uphold trial finding that father———————was unfit after prolonged absence, despite defense claim of counsel error",2783,5218000,8001000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2867643-a3dc31a00d8a3545b18da68caea2b58d&start=5218&end=8001","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2867643-a3dc31a00d8a3545b18da68caea2b58d/thumbnail_5218000.jpg","/articles/6090319/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-urged-to-uphold-trial-finding-that-fatherwas-unfit-after-prolonged-absence-despite-defense-claim-of-counsel-error","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6090319-89e782157731407e9bce594405db2cfb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770924399&Signature=bym1gR0N5ffu6lg0aayf0FnSEmj2u-9rmTcHRNMvnXkz-JgK~DPU--4aJv4BA6p42id5pSy0rm8OqhFdKH6Z3GVhPFpni1V8ntXiw0d2lobikxa8CZ6SgQMGcpWMDmZosbIzs78cJTDdVTmK9UQItGmYcAtuTqxs-uvwP5TwBgrn6EVkc5rkSfORDRgME86VrNoMLBmpOB4ch6ITttUaBusnYm0y7zjQUINtrTo-rPDXtcbguj3PMh-kXU4Nga3N19ZvCRVtVXnDfOfxmU1g8j7NmRV81MZ38903S6-Der1kdo8toZUlcBonh07CMqCnrjTSgk5y7YaShm2NAMEMIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Massachusetts Appeals Court on April 3 heard argument in an appeal challenging the termination of a father's parental rights after a protracted child-welfare matter. The father\u0000represented pro se at earlier stages and later by counsel on appeal\u0000argued his trial lawyer failed to seek district-court modification of a restraining order that had prevented contact with the child, resulting in a denial of meaningful assistance of counsel and of due process.

The Department of Children and Families, represented by Matthew Price, told the panel the record contains evidence of repeated criminal convictions, extended periods of incarceration and long gaps in contact with the child that supported the trial court's fitness findings and conclusion that DCF made reasonable reunification efforts. \"Father had notice. He had an opportunity to be heard by the court,\" Price said, arguing the trial court properly weighed the full record.

Child counsel Sherry Avalon Niles, representing the child in care, emphasized the child's complex medical and developmental needs, listing diagnoses at trial: \"This child has ASD. She has ADHD. She has microcephaly,\" Niles told the panel, arguing the child's best interest favored termination because the father had not demonstrated stability or an ability to meet specialized needs.

The father\u0000through appellate counsel and filings\u0000said trial counsel should have filed an appearance and sought modification of the district-court 209A restraining order so that supervised contact could be arranged while the child was in DCF custody. Court questioning focused on whether district courts have the power to alter restraining orders in ways that would permit visitation, what practical steps defense counsel could have taken years earlier, and how likely a district judge would have been to alter the 209A given prior convictions and other facts.

Why it matters: The appeal centers on the interplay between procedural protections (the right to meaningful representation) and the statutory best-interest standard for terminating parental rights. The court's ruling will weigh heavily on how appellate panels review claims of ineffective assistance in child-welfare termination cases where long histories of noncontact and criminality are in the record.

The case was submitted after argument.","The Appeals Court heard argument on April 3 in a child-welfare appeal where a father contends his trial lawyer failed to pursue district-court relief enabling contact with his child; the department and child counsel said the father's protracted absence, repeated incarcerations and the child\u0000s special needs supported termination of parental rights.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6090325,"Appeals court hears dueling readings of sentence ranges under section 10M after Rodriguez",533,3987000,4520000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2867643-a3dc31a00d8a3545b18da68caea2b58d&start=3987&end=4520","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2867643-a3dc31a00d8a3545b18da68caea2b58d/thumbnail_3987000.jpg","/articles/6090325/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-dueling-readings-of-sentence-ranges-under-section-10M-after-Rodriguez","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6090325-275277c8ffae372bfb4b93ee45b564c3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770924399&Signature=cqyClHOeYeH4SlSuSRcDOgmcOX8od2KXqL9qlT~v6e7~N9y9WcXEnEuIlclQfSyBIfKTAxhfHf6~WTX1fKNVJ60QR83GrveRqC5y9uZpMJYcASNzHmm2rcSkhw0f~u80bAIyRHjuVsfiqlqht1QkZ-L-fgUAHIZndJSESoT~m0Vh5X1rSFe2bm-p8jyTz4T4W~5srrNZnEyWOo71zoQ4SP~1YXk7DQd4uxwSiWaqEs~02C11KAiYj5eSWDN2tBn9YMbnld4cwsgMLqYcZaCjmAVPwiQokE5CgMd58VbsgNqO6n4-8mcHoCqNVXWNmidH82HJNnCAhHnn1IzGCbyXdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court on April 3 heard argument over how to read overlapping sentencing phrases in G.L. c. 275, \u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000(10M) and related statutory provisions in Kamalov v. Da Silva.

Assistant District Attorney arguing for the Commonwealth urged the court to harmonize statutory language so that courts supply a \"minimum-maximum\" sentence that preserves the statute\u0000s components. Counsel said Rodriguez requires the court to treat the lower-end language as the permissible floor and to avoid rendering the separate statutory minimum meaningless.

Counsel for the appellant, Christopher DeMeo, urged that in ambiguous statutory constructions the rule of lenity favors the lower minimum and that judges retain sentencing discretion; he warned that the Commonwealth\u0000s proposed rule would impose a new canon of statutory construction across multiple provisions.

The justices spent much of their time testing practical consequences: whether a sentencing judge's choice of a 1-to-2.5-year lower-end term produces the same parole-eligibility and statutory effect as a straight 2.5-year sentence; how Rodriguez and subsequent cases such as Rossetti frame the \"lower end of the sentencing range,\" and whether harmonizing the statutory provisions will create unintended limits on judicial sentencing discretion.

Why it matters: The court\u0000s ruling would guide lower courts on how to impose indeterminate state prison sentences when the statute contains both a lower-range figure and a mandatory minimum sentence phrase. Counsel said the issue could apply to several penal statutes and affect the structure of many state-prison terms.

The case was submitted after argument.","In Kamalov v. Da Silva the Commonwealth urged the court to read chapter 10M to require a \"minimum-maximum\" sentence (e.g., a lower-end range floor such as 1 to 2.5 years) to preserve statutory words; defense urged applying lenity and upholding judge's discretion. Judges probed statutory structure and Rodriguez precedents.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court questions whether public "affray" requires bystander fear beyond victim's alarm

Appeals argument in gun-possession appeal centers on certified records and whether defendant must know licensing rule

Sibling dispute over life-insurance beneficiary turns on digital evidence and discovery battles

Appeals court urged to uphold trial finding that father———————was unfit after prolonged absence, despite defense claim of counsel error

Appeals court hears dueling readings of sentence ranges under section 10M after Rodriguez