SJC hears argument over whether proximity can violate 209A stay‑away order

The Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in SJC13737, Skipper Carino, over whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to convict a man of violating a Massachusetts abuse‑prevention stay‑away order (G.L. c. 209A) based on his proximity to the protected residence.

Rachel Channa, attorney for the appellant, told the justices the Commonwealth “simply didn't elicit any testimony” showing what the defendant could have done from the spot where he was arrested, and argued that the jury would have had to “pile inference upon inference” to find the defendant could have abused or contacted the protected person from that location.

The case turns on how the court applies three related formulations used by appeals courts for a “stay‑away” violation: entering a protected property, taking actions that directly intrude on the identified property, or positioning oneself “proximate to the resident so that [the defendant] would be able to abuse or contact the plaintiff” if the plaintiff were present. Counsel debated whether, on the record here, the Commonwealth met its burden to prove the third formulation.

Why the argument matters

The outcome could refine how lower courts and juries evaluate evidence in 209A prosecutions that rest on proximity rather than a measured distance violation. The parties and justices discussed precedents cited in briefing—Watson (2018), O'Shea, Lattimore, Goldman and Telesenor—about whether mere…