Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Appeals panel affirms convictions despite defense claim restraining-order modification was ambiguous
Loading...
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’’ and then allowed the defendant to live in a first-floor apartment while ordering ‘‘no contact’’ and a 5-foot buffer when in the unit. Sandman told the panel that trial counsel’s opening and closing statements reflected confusion and that a reasonable person would not have clear notice of what conduct was prohibited.
The Commonwealth responded (via counsel represented at trial and in briefing) that the order should be read harmoniously: the modification allowed the defendant to live in the first-floor unit but preserved the stay-away protection for the plaintiff’s upstairs unit and Plaintiff 617. The prosecutor and one justice observed that the written order and the subsequent transcript of the modification hearing supported the interpretation that the stay-away from the victim’s residence remained in effect and that the 5-foot and 50-foot measures described how the defendant should behave while living on the first floor.
During argument a member of the panel observed that the written form and the short entry box on the modification form can create ambiguity in practice, but said the record — including how both trial attorneys and the victim treated the order — supports the jury’s view that the stay-away remained in place. One panel justice announced from the bench during argument that, on the record, the court would affirm the defendant’s convictions as to the condition at issue.
The appellate panel explained that the modification was not a termination and that, viewed in context, the modification limited the defendant’s access to the upstairs unit and provided protective distance requirements when the defendant lived on the property. The court thus concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict on the charge that the defendant violated the stay-away condition as modified.
The written judgment of the panel reaffirms the convictions on this portion of the appeal; other claims remain preserved for consideration as appropriate.
