Source: http://www.bostoncriminaldefenselawyersblog.com/assault-and-battery/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:39:27+00:00

Document:
Sometimes it seems there is a fine line between when a similar prior criminal act is admissible or not admissible. However, when the trial judge gets it wrong, the admission is an abuse of discretion that entitles a defendant to a new trial. Commonwealth v. Vasso.
On May 25, 2010 at the MBTA station, the defendant allegedly pointed a knife at the victim, a sixth grader, and said "Where's my drug money?" The victim informed an MBTA police officer about the assault and identified his attacker as `Demetrios.' The next day, when the victim again saw `Demetrios' in the station, the victim told another MBTA police officer. 'Demetrios' was arrested and charged with assault by means of a dangerous weapon.
Before trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude from evidence any prior bad acts including prior criminal convictions on grounds that they would have a chilling effect on his right to testify. The Commonwealth sought a ruling to admit thirteen prior criminal convictions obtained in nine separate cases. The judge then ruled that three prior convictions did not qualify for admission because they involved dispositions in which the defendant was placed on straight probation without a sentence. Another conviction did qualify for use for impeachment, but was excluded on the basis of an incorrect understanding of the law (a felony conviction in which no sentence was imposed, unlike a misdemeanor, is nonetheless available for impeachment). Three others were excluded because though they qualified for use under G. L. c. 233, § 21 (possession of a Class D controlled substance and possession of a Class B controlled substance), but the judge wanted to avoid the `cumulative [effect of] piling on so to speak.' The remaining six convictions involving crimes against the person were then admitted to impeach the defendant's credibility.
In exercising discretion under G. L. c. 233, § 21, judges must consider the following factors: (1) whether the prior convictions are similar to the crime with which the defendant is charged, (2) whether the prior convictions are for crimes involving truthfulness, and (3) whether there are other prior convictions besides those that are similar that could be used for impeachment. However, even when a prior criminal conviction meets the factors, the judge must balance the danger of unfair prejudice against the probative value of the evidence for the purpose of impeachment. Commonwealth v. Drumgold, 423 Mass. at 249.
The judge's decision to admit these six convictions for impeachment in a case charging an aggravated assault in which there was a lack of any corroborative evidence apart from the testimony of the victim, and in which there were other prior convictions for drug offenses and property offenses that could have been used instead, was an abuse of discretion. In making decisions about the use of prior convictions, attention must be given to the `higher attendant risk that [the defendant] might improperly be convicted based on his reputation or his propensity to commit a crime.' Commonwealth v. Little, 453 Mass. at 774.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has granted a new trial to a defendant after finding there were errors in the jury instructions because of changes in judicial precedent. Commonwealth v. Rivera.
Defendant Rivera was facing charges of armed assault with intent to murder, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and assault and battery on a police officer. During his Superior Court trial in regards to his criminal responsibility, evidence was presented showing Rivera suffered from a controllable mental illness that could be activated by alcohol, and that on the night he was arrested he had voluntarily drank alcohol thereby activating his illness.
1.	[a] person is not criminally responsible for his conduct if he suffers from a mental disease or defect, and as a result of that mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
2.	alcoholism or drug addiction is not a mental disease or defect within the meaning of the test for lack of criminal responsibility.
3.	intoxication caused by the voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs cannot be a basis for concluding that the defendant lacked criminal responsibility, however if the defendant suffers from a mental disease or defect that is activated by the consumption of alcohol or drugs and that results in the lack of a substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law, then the defendant is not criminally responsible.
Rivera was found guilty and sentenced to 12-15 years for the first charge, ten years of probation on the second charge, and 2 ½ years to run concurrently with the first charge. Rivera appealed the verdict.
After his trial but before his appeal was heard, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the jury instructions were inadequate because they did not expressly inform the jury that a defendant's mental disease or defect, solely and independently of the consumption of alcohol or drugs, may deprive the defendant of the substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness or to conform his conduct to the law.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court subsequently granted Rivera a new trial.
After a social occasion turned ugly, Ryan Marshall, along with some friends, beat up the victim, who later died as a result. Though Marshall's indictment alleged that he acted before the commission of the felony, at the trial, the judge instructed the jury that Marshall could be convicted if he aided in the commission of the murder of the victim, which was a felony.
On appeal, Marshall's conviction was reversed. Although the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish that the defendant had participated in the murderous assault, the evidence did not establish that Marshall had done any act before the assault.
When a grand jury re-indicted Marshall, Marshall moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that, because "murder is a form or a 'species' of lesser included offense to accessory before the fact to murder," a second prosecution was barred by double jeopardy.
"In general, a crime must be proved as charged and must be charged as proved." K.B. Smith, Criminal Practice and Procedure, supra at § 15.40, at 872. Although the proof of liability at trial, and the jury instructions that accompanied it, would have sufficed if the defendant had been indicted simply for the murder itself, they were at variance with the wording of the indictment. Nevertheless these errors were not fatal, and the court's prior decision holding them in error did not erect a double jeopardy bar to subsequent prosecution for the crime proved at the first trial. The Supreme Judicial Court remands the case for further proceedings. Ryan Marshall v. Commonwealth.
Early Monday, more than a dozen teenagers were removed from an outbound MBTA train after "T" police received reports of a fight on board the Franklin line commuter rail. MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo stated that transit police responded to the Readville Station and removed the teenagers.
In a second incident, MBTA and Quincy police were called on reports of a fight at the Wollaston red line station. When police arrived at the station, they located two groups of males who admitted to being involved in an altercation. Reports indicated that neither group intended to press charges.
In addition to the fight, MBTA employees reported that a window on the red line car had been destroyed during the fight. Quincy Police detained a man, 28, of Abington, after he was identified as having broken the window by a witness.
An attack that took place on the MBTA's Red Line was recorded and uploaded to YouTube by a passenger. In the video, a woman on the train begins yelling at a man who allegedly stepped on her dog while trying to sit down. The woman then threatens that she is going to hit the passenger before she gets off at her stop.
As the video continues, the woman continues threatening the man before she follows through and begins punching the man. The MBTA Transit Police have spoken to the man and he does not wish to press charges.
However, the woman in the video has turned herself in and will be summoned to appear in court. Police report the woman will be charged with assault and battery and disorderly conduct.
An Easton Boston woman was discovered outside her home Wednesday September 21 so savagely assaulted that she was unrecognizable. The neighbor who discovered her said she believed the woman was dead.
Boston Police reported that the victim was in her 20's, and was suffering from life-threatening injuries. Police have not yet determined if she was raped. According to reports, the neighbor was taking out her recycling around 7 a.m. when she discovered the victim lying on her side, naked, in a nearby lot.
The victim was transported to Massachusetts General Hospital. According to neighbors the victim lived in the East Boston area for around a year. Tricia Saint Andre, from East Boston, said that "their neighborhood is very quiet everyone looks out for each other," and that she was shocked by the news.
Riders on an MBTA bus refused to let a woman and her 2 year old child exit after witnessing the woman assault her young son by striking his face. MBTA Police arrived at the intersection of Warren and Brunswick Streets in Roxbury to discover a group of angry riders circling the woman and her child.
Reports indicate the police were able to separate 25 year old Erica Ryan and her child from the group, but not without difficulty. Witnesses on the bus told police they heard Ryan directing obscenities at the child when he wouldn't eat and then they saw her strike his face with a closed fist.
According to Suffolk Assistant District Attorney Esther Laine, a security camera on the bus captured Ryan punching her son in the face with enough force to cause his head to snap back in his stroller. The child was transported to Boston Medical Center for treatment.

References: v. 
 § 21
 § 21
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 15
 v.