Appeals court presses parties over whether assault conviction proves location of crime

The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument on whether an assault conviction should stand when the record does not clearly show the alleged offense occurred in Massachusetts. Defense counsel argued the Commonwealth failed to prove location, and that the issue was not raised at trial, while the prosecutor said the record contains sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain the conviction.

Why it matters: If the appeals court finds the Commonwealth did not prove the offense occurred within the state's borders, the conviction could be reversed or remanded for further proceedings. The case also tests when ineffective‑assistance claims tied to trial tactics can be decided on the existing record.

Defense counsel told the panel, “A state may not prosecute an individual for a crime committed outside its boundaries,” and argued the transcript lacks a clear statement that the incident occurred in Haverhill or anywhere in Massachusetts. Counsel noted the police sergeant who testified said he had been “a sergeant with the Haverhill Police Department for 4 months” but had been “a police officer for 29 years,” and that the record does not show where the earlier service occurred.

The court questioned whether the location of the offense is an element that the Commonwealth must prove at trial, and whether judicial notice could or should be taken from the victim’s testimony about living on “Presidential Drive.” The defense pointed to inconsistent or non‑specific testimony (for example, that officers “sent a car to a residence” without saying where) and argued counsel’s cross‑examination of the victim introduced ambiguity that could not be cured without further factfinding.

Assistant District Attorney Emily Jamolowicz urged the panel to affirm, arguing the defendant “did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because he cannot meet either prong of the Saffarian test” (deficient performance and prejudice), and that the record contains circumstantial evidence—officer testimony and the victim’s statements—sufficient to allow a reasonable inference that the incident occurred in Haverhill, Massachusetts.

The justices pressed both sides about procedural choices at trial (motions for new trial, scope of cross‑examination) and precedent the parties invoked, including decisions where convictions were reversed because the location element was not proved. The court did not announce a decision at the close of argument.

The panel took the arguments under advisement; no ruling was issued from the bench.