A.S.R. v. A.K.A. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-124-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 17-P-1109 Appeals Court A.S.R. vs. A.K.A. No. 17-P-1109. Middlesex. November 15, 2016. – September 22 , 2017. Present: Trainor, Meade, & Hanlon, JJ. Civil Harassment. Harassment Prevention. Intent. Evidence, Intent. Criminal Harassment. Complaint for protection from harassment filed in the Cambridge Division of the District Court Department on May 27, 2015. A hearing to extend the harassment prevention order was had before James H. Wexler, J. Ruth O’Meara-Costello for the defendant. Martin F. Kane, II, & Joan E. Kolligian, for the plaintiff, submitted a brief. HANLON, J. After a hearing, a judge of the District Court extended a harassment prevention order, pursuant to G. L. c. 258E, against the defendant, A.K.A.[1] She appeals, arguing, among other things, that the judge failed to identify three acts as the basis for the order, failed to make findings supporting A.K.A.’s intent in contacting the plaintiff, A.S.R., and, based on A.S.R.’s testimony that he was not placed in fear of physical harm or property damage as a result of the contact, there was insufficient evidence to extend the order. Finally, she argues that, even if issuing the order was warranted under the statute, the order was unconstitutional because it penalized constitutionally protected speech. We affirm. Background. At the beginning of the extension hearing, the judge carefully reviewed A.S.R.’s initial affidavit and copies of various voice mail, text, and electronic mail (e-mail) messages admitted as an exhibit packet by agreement of the parties.[2] He then heard testimony from A.S.R. and A.K.A.; both were represented by counsel. The parties were in a dating relationship for a little more than one year until September, 2013. They continued to have contact until January, 2014, because A.S.R. “tried to help [A.K.A.] for a while,” but then A.S.R. cut off contact and “made it very clear that [he] didn’t want any contact from her.” Afterwards, A.K.A. began sending A.S.R. “lots of e-mails, phone calls, [and] appearing in person in an attempt to get [him] to resume contact in a way that made [him] feel very afraid and hurt and abused.” Although in March, 2014, A.S.R. threatened to obtain a restraining order, he resumed contact with A.K.A. for a short time in June, 2014, “in an attempt to make things right,” because she had sent him images of her […]