Court Opinion

ID: 9691798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 14:09:38.977288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:13.800587
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                  22-P-807

                                  COMMONWEALTH

                                       vs.

                              BRANDON FERREIRA.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       Following a jury-waived trial in the District Court, the

 defendant was found guilty of assault and battery on a family or

 household member.1      On appeal, he contends that the judge erred

 in denying his motions for a required finding of not guilty,

 both at the close of the Commonwealth's case and at the close of

 all the evidence, because the Commonwealth's case-in-chief

 rested on "illogical speculation," and the Commonwealth failed

 to disprove that he acted in self-defense.            We affirm.

       Discussion.     In reviewing the denial of a motion for a

 required finding of not guilty, we consider "whether, after

 viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

 prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the

 1 The judge found the defendant not guilty of violating an abuse
 prevention order.
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), quoting

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).    We apply the

same standard in assessing whether there was sufficient evidence

to prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense.     See

Commonwealth v. Kamishlian, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 931, 932 (1985)

("Once self-defense is put in issue, the Commonwealth must prove

that the defendant did not act in self-defense").

    Despite conflicting testimony to the contrary, the trial

judge could have found the following facts.     See Commonwealth v.

Kapaia, 490 Mass. 787, 793 (2022) ("'[i]t does not matter that

some of the evidence could be characterized as equivocal or

contradictory,' as '[c]redibility is a question for the [fact

finder] to decide; [the fact finder] may accept or reject, in

whole or in part, the testimony presented'" [citations

omitted]).

    On the evening of July 26, 2021, the victim obtained an

emergency abuse prevention order against her then-husband, the

defendant.   The next morning, the victim was in her bedroom

getting ready to attend a court hearing to request an extension

of the order when she heard the front door unlock, followed by

the defendant entering the home.     The victim began to dial 911

until the defendant entered the room, pushed her, and slapped or

grabbed the phone out of her hands.     A struggle ensued, where

                                 2
the defendant pushed the victim multiple times as she tried to

retrieve her phone from him.   Eventually, the victim ran to the

front door to call for help.   The defendant then stepped out

onto the front porch and threw the victim's phone into the

street.   The victim went and grabbed the phone and then ran up

the street to seek help from a neighbor.   Moments later, the

defendant walked away from the scene, prompting the victim to

run back to the house and call 911.   This evidence, if credited

by the judge, was sufficient to support the elements of assault

and battery on a family or household member2 and the absence of

self-defense.3

2 To sustain a conviction for assault and battery on a family or
household member, the Commonwealth must prove that (1) the
defendant intentionally touched the victim, (2) the touching was
likely to cause bodily harm or was offensive, and (3) the
defendant and victim were family or household members at the
time of the offense. See G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a). See also
Commonwealth v. Dustin, 476 Mass. 1003, 1004-1005 (2016);
Commonwealth v. Eberhart, 461 Mass. 809, 818 (2012). The
Commonwealth's theory was that the defendant's pushing of the
victim as she tried to retrieve her phone from him constituted
an offensive touching.

3 To satisfy its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that the defendant did not act in self-defense, the Commonwealth
had to establish that one of the following factors did not
exist: "(1) the defendant had reasonable concern for his
personal safety; (2) he used all reasonable means to avoid
physical combat; and (3) 'the degree of force used was
reasonable in the circumstances, with proportionality being the
touchstone for assessing reasonableness'" (citation omitted).
Commonwealth v. King, 460 Mass. 80, 83 (2011). The defendant's
claim of self-defense was not directed at the operative assault
-- the initial pushing of the victim as she tried to retrieve
her phone, but rather, related to a later incident where the

                                 3
     The defendant's claim that the Commonwealth's case rested

on illogical speculation is directed more to the weight and

credibility of the victim's testimony, rather than the

sufficiency of the evidence presented.4   It is well settled that

"[i]f, from the evidence, conflicting inferences are possible,

it is for the [fact finder] to determine where the truth lies,

for the weight and credibility of the evidence is wholly within

[the fact finder's] province."   Commonwealth v. Lao, 443 Mass.

770, 779 (2005) S.C., 450 Mass. 215 (2007) and 460 Mass. 12

(2011).   Thus, the judge was entitled to reject any evidence

supporting the existence of self-defense.   See., e.g.,

Commonwealth v. Ruci, 409 Mass. 94, 97 (1991).   See also

Commonwealth v. Coffman, 84 Mass. App. Ct. 33, 38-39 (2013)

("Where, as here, the evidence at trial 'turns solely on the

credibility of [the defendant's] witnesses,' the Commonwealth's

victim jumped on the defendant's back in another effort to
retrieve her phone.

4 The defendant cites the following testimony of the victim as
unbelievable and contrary to her claim that the defendant
assaulted her: that the victim could not call 911 between the
time that she heard the defendant enter the house and the time
that he took the phone away from her, that the victim was pushed
in the chest but had only a bruise in the calf, that the victim
did not take opportunities to flee from the house and instead
struggled with the defendant, and that the defendant was intent
on attacking the victim but just walked away when he got
outside. While these points may raise grounds for cross-
examination and argument to the fact finder, they do not
establish that the Commonwealth's theory of the case was based
on "illogical speculation."

                                 4
case cannot deteriorate" [citation omitted]).     We will not

"substitute our judgment for that of the judge on credibility

questions."    Commonwealth v. Werner, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 689, 698

(2012).    Further, contrary to the defendant's assertion, no

conjecture was required for the judge to conclude that the

defendant committed the assault and battery against the victim.

See Commonwealth v. Santos, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 3 (2021), and

cases cited (victim's testimony alone may be sufficient to

support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).

       In short, because the Commonwealth's evidence, if believed,

negated the defendant's claim of self-defense and proved the

elements of the crime charged, the judge properly denied the

defendant's motions for a required finding of not guilty.

                                      Judgment affirmed.

                                      By the Court (Massing,
                                        Ditkoff & Singh, JJ.5),

                                      Clerk

Entered:    August 25, 2023.

5   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                  5