Court Opinion

ID: 9398819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 14:06:39.309698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:36.521844
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-30
                                                   22-P-31

                                       K.C.

                                       vs.

                                    J.C.
                          (and a companion case1).

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

        The defendant appeals from abuse prevention extension

 orders issued against him pursuant to G. L. c. 209A.               He argues

 that the District Court judge who extended the original ex parte

 orders declined to review photographs and text messages that

 proved the defendant's innocence.            We affirm.

        The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, applied for abuse

 prevention orders against the defendant, the husband's uncle,

 with whom they were living at the time.            On October 28, 2021, a

 District Court judge issued the original ex parte orders against

 the defendant.      On November 10, 2021, a different judge of the

 1   T.C. vs. J.C.
District Court held an extension hearing at which the parties

were all present and testified.

     At the extension hearing, the husband testified that, on

October 26, 2021, the defendant threatened to kill the wife if

she continued to keep dishes in the sink.2   The wife similarly

testified that the defendant threatened to kill her.    The

defendant, however, testified that the husband and wife were

lying; the wife had violent outbursts; and the defendant asked

the husband and wife to clean dirty dishes in the sink, at which

point the wife threw dirty dishes and a knife at him.    The

defendant also represented that he had photographs and text

messages that showed (1) the lack of sanitation at the house and

(2) he had been "kindly requesting" that the dishes be cleaned.

The judge declined to review the photographs and text messages,

found that there had been acts sufficient to put the husband and

wife in fear, and issued the abuse prevention extension orders.

     The basis for the defendant's appeal is the judge's

decision not to review the defendant's photographs and text

messages.   One of the photographs depicted dirty dishes in the

2 According to the husband, the defendant also contacted the
husband's mother and told her that he was going to kill the
husband.

                                  2
sink.3   The text messages were sent on October 19, 2021, and

stated, "I have been trying to cook like [two] days I can't cook

because you refuse to wash the dishes this isn't some petty

argument this is me not being able to eat I'm sick I need to be

able to eat when I can't eat when I'm sick this adds a lot of

stress in my life."     The defendant argues that this evidence

proved his innocence.

     As we have said, each party in a c. 209A abuse prevention

proceeding "should be given a fair opportunity to present his

case.    While a judge surely may exclude irrelevant or

inadmissible evidence, or even interrupt an argument or a

witness examination that has become repetitious, he should not

terminate a hearing without ensuring that he has heard all the

relevant and admissible evidence."     S.T. v. E.M., 80 Mass. App.

Ct. 423, 430-431 (2011).    Here, the judge did precisely as we

have instructed.   After the husband and wife testified that the

defendant threatened to kill them, the judge asked the defendant

what he wanted to say.     The defendant then gave his detailed

account of the events.

     Moreover, there was no abuse of discretion in the judge's

decision not to review the defendant's photographs and text

3 The defendant also argues that the husband and wife wasted his
food and damaged his tools, and that his other photographs
depicted that waste and damage.

                                   3
messages.     It was undisputed that the parties had a contentious

living arrangement and that there had been disagreements, among

other things, about dirty dishes in the sink.     The photographs

and text messages showed nothing more than that and did not go

to whether the disagreements between the parties eventually

culminated in the defendant's threatening to kill the husband

and wife.4    See M.G. v. G.A., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 139, 148 n.11

(2018) (judge has discretion to exclude irrelevant evidence).

                                       Orders dated November 10,
                                         2021, extending abuse
                                         prevention orders affirmed.

                                       By the Court (Meade, Blake &
                                         Brennan, JJ.5),

                                       Clerk

Entered:     June 1, 2023.

4 Even if the defendant had been "kindly requesting" over text
messages that the dishes be cleaned, that does not disprove that
he later threatened to kill the wife over the same issue. This
case instead turned on the credibility of the parties, and it is
apparent from the judge's decision to extend the original ex
parte orders that he credited the testimony of the husband and
wife that the defendant threatened to kill them.

5   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                   4