Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals panel affirms convictions despite defense claim restraining-order modification was ambiguous
Summary
The court heard argument over whether a modified domestic restraining order was ambiguous and whether the defendant received adequate notice of prohibited conduct; the panel explained the written modification and trial record supported the jury’s verdict and affirmed convictions on that appeal segment.
The Appeals Court considered whether a modified domestic restraining order was so ambiguous that it violated the defendant’s due-process rights, and whether the jury had sufficient guidance to decide guilt in Commonwealth v. Marcelin.
Why it matters: the case explores how courts must draft and interpret domestic-relations restraining orders (209A orders), the standard for clarity required to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice, and when ambiguities must be resolved in a defendant’s favor.
Defense counsel Joanna Sandman argued the modification was ambiguous: the written order said the stay-away provision (paragraph 3) was ‘‘modified’’…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
