Commonwealth v. Valentin (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-058-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 16-P-245 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. WALTON VALENTIN. No. 16-P-245. Essex. February 28, 2017. – May 12, 2017. Present: Vuono, Carhart, & Kinder, JJ.[1] Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Assault and Battery. Stalking. Protective Order. Abuse Prevention. Evidence, Hearsay, Unavailable witness. Witness, Unavailability, Self-incrimination, Immunity. Constitutional Law, Confrontation of witnesses, Self-incrimination. Practice, Criminal, Hearsay, Confrontation of witnesses, Required finding, Instructions to jury, Reasonable doubt, Question by jury. Reasonable Doubt. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on January 2, 2014. The cases were tried before Richard E. Welch, III, J. Robert L. Sheketoff for the defendant. David F. O’Sullivan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. KINDER, J. Following a jury trial in Superior Court, the defendant, Walton Valentin, was convicted of multiple crimes of violence against his former girl friend, whom we shall call Jane.[2] The jury found him guilty of entering a building with intent to commit a felony, G. L. c. 266, § 17; assault by means of a dangerous weapon, G. L. c. 265, § 15B; aggravated assault and battery in violation of a restraining order, G. L. c. 265, § 15A(c)(iii)[3]; assault and battery, G. L. c. 265, § 13A; stalking in violation of a restraining order, G. L. c. 265, § 43(b); and violations of a restraining order (twelve counts), G. L. c. 209A, § 7.[4] On appeal, the defendant claims (1) the judge erred in admitting the victim’s hearsay statements pursuant to the doctrine of forfeiture of the right of confrontation by wrongdoing; (2) the evidence was insufficient on the charges of stalking, aggravated assault and battery, and entering a building with intent to commit a felony; (3) the judge’s instruction on reasonable doubt was error; and (4) the judge abused his discretion in responding to a question from the jury. We affirm. Background. 1. The break-in and assaults. We summarize the evidence the jury could have found, viewing it in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979). On June 24, 2013, Jane obtained a restraining order prohibiting the defendant from contacting or abusing her. The order was in effect through January 7, 2014. In October 2013, Jane began staying at the home of her co-worker and friend, Susan[5], in Lawrence. On October 28, 2013, Jane and Susan attended a party in Boston. Following the party, […]