Title: Commonwealth v. Figueroa
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-11755
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: June 17, 2015

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-11755 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  VICTOR FIGUEROA. 
 
 
 
June 17, 2015. 
 
 
Mayhem.  Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon.  
Practice, Criminal, Duplicative convictions, Lesser 
included offense. 
 
 
 
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Victor Figueroa, was 
convicted of mayhem, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 14, and 
assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon causing 
serious bodily injury, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15A (c) 
(i).1  The Appeals Court affirmed the convictions, rejecting, 
among other things, the defendant's argument that the 
convictions are duplicative.  See Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 85 
Mass. App. Ct. 1127 (2014).  The case is now before this court 
on further appellate review of that limited issue.  See 469 
Mass. 1110 (2014). 
 
 
Background.  We limit our discussion of the facts to those 
relevant to the duplicative convictions issue, which are as 
follows.  Prior to the attack that led to the convictions, the 
defendant had been, essentially, stalking the victim.  On the 
morning of March 17, 2005, the victim was riding a bus to work.  
The defendant was also on the bus, as was the victim's coworker 
Silvia Gomez.  At their usual stop, the victim and Gomez got off 
the bus by the front door.  The defendant called to the victim 
and she told him that she had nothing to say to him.  The 
defendant then pulled the victim by her jacket and punched her 
in the mouth with his hand, striking her twice.  The victim 
                                                 
1 The jury found the defendant not guilty of a third charge, 
armed assault with intent to murder, G. L. c. 265, § 18 (b). 
2 
 
became dizzy, felt her face and neck burning, and saw a knife in 
the defendant's hand.  While the defendant was striking the 
victim, she tried to run, but the defendant was holding her 
jacket and arm.  Gomez pulled the victim away and they ran 
toward their office.  The victim was subsequently placed in an 
ambulance and taken to the hospital.  As a result of the attack, 
the victim sustained injuries to her face, neck, ear, and right 
arm, and has scarring on her face and neck.  A police officer 
who arrived shortly after the attack testified that the victim 
had at least three lacerations on her face and neck area. 
 
 
At trial, the judge instructed the jury that the mayhem 
charge related to the injuries to the victim's face and the 
assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon causing 
serious bodily injury charge related to the injuries to the 
victim's neck.  More specifically, the judge instructed the jury 
that in connection with the mayhem charge they could "not 
consider any other alleged injury to [the victim] except any 
injury that you find was made to her face.  Specifically, you 
may not consider any injury to her neck or any other part of her 
body except her face."  She similarly instructed the jury 
regarding the assault and battery charge, stating that they 
could "consider only the . . . alleged injury to [the victim's] 
neck" and could "not consider any alleged injury to her face or 
to her arm, back, or any other part of her body other than her 
neck." 
 
 
Discussion.  We agree with the defendant that assault and 
battery by means of a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily 
injury is a lesser included offense of mayhem, see Commonwealth 
v. Martin, 425 Mass. 718, 721-722 (1997), and that he cannot be 
convicted of both crimes unless the convictions rest on separate 
and distinct acts, see Commonwealth v. Suero, 465 Mass. 215, 219 
(2013).2  We do not agree, however, that his actions here formed 
                                                 
2 The defendant was indicted and convicted under the second 
branch of the mayhem statute, G. L. c. 265, § 14, which 
provides: 
 
"[W]hoever, with intent to maim or disfigure, assaults 
another person with a dangerous weapon . . . and by such 
assault disfigures, cripples or inflicts serious or 
permanent physical injury upon such person . . . shall be 
punished by imprisonment in the [S]tate prison for not more 
than twenty years or by a fine of not more than [$1,000] 
and imprisonment in jail for not more than two and one-half 
years." 
3 
 
but one act such that he cannot be convicted of both the lesser 
and the greater offense.  In the Suero case, we addressed a 
conflict in the law as it then existed regarding whether a jury 
or a judge should decide whether, when a defendant is charged 
with both a lesser and a greater offense, a defendant "has 
committed actions that are sufficiently separate and distinct as 
to factually comprise different crimes."  Id. at 221-222.  We 
concluded that both the judge and the jury have a role to play -
- that there is a factual question to be determined by the jury 
and a legal question to be determined by the judge.  Id. at 222. 
 
 
Although the Suero case had not yet been decided at the 
time of the defendant's trial, both of those determinations were 
made here.  The judge, who gave due consideration to the issue, 
carefully instructed the jury on both charges.  The resulting 
convictions were, as the judge noted in sentencing the 
defendant, of necessity, based on the jury instructions, for 
separate and distinct acts.  Unlike in the Suero case where the 
lesser included offense of indecent assault and battery was 
incidental to the greater offense of statutory rape, the acts 
that form the bases for the two convictions in this case -- the 
cutting of the victim's face and the cutting of her neck -- were 
independent acts.  The defendant's convictions of mayhem and of 
assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon causing 
serious bodily injury are, therefore, not duplicative. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgments affirmed. 
 
 
 
Michael J. Hickson for the defendant. 
 
Jessica Langsam, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth.