Commonwealth v. Coffman (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-092-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 11‑P‑2023 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. JAMES COFFMAN.[1] No. 11‑P‑2023. Hampden. October 3, 2012. ‑ July 18, 2013. Present: Graham, Vuono, & Hanlon, JJ. Sex Offender. Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act. Constitutional Law, Confrontation of witnesses. Practice, Criminal, Confrontation of witnesses, Assistance of counsel. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 20, 2010. The case was heard by Peter A. Velis, J. Glynis MacVeety for the defendant. Deborah D. Ahlstrom, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. VUONO, J. In 1991, the defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated rape and related offenses in Superior Court. Upon his release from prison he was classified as a level three sex offender and became subject to the registration requirements of G. L. c. 6, § 178F1/2. On April 21, 2011, following a jury-waived trial, the defendant was found guilty of failing to register as required, in violation of G. L. c. 6, § 178H(a). In a separate proceeding before the same judge, the defendant was convicted of being a second offender, in violation of G. L. c. 6, § 178H(a)(2). Thereafter, in a proceeding before the same judge the defendant admitted to a violation of probation in connection with a another conviction, the hearing on which had been pending. The Commonwealth’s theory of guilt was that the defendant knowingly provided a false address when he registered at the Springfield police department on March 31, 2010, and that, even if the defendant had been residing at the address he provided on that date, he subsequently changed his address and knowingly failed to provide notice to the police of that change. At trial, the defendant admitted that he had notice of his status and his obligations under the statute, including the requirement of reporting a change in his address. He claimed, however, that he was in compliance with the statute because the Hampden County district attorney’s office had placed him in protective custody out of State during the time period specified in the indictment. The defendant filed motions for a required finding of not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth’s case and at the close of all the evidence, which were denied. In the motion filed at the close of all the evidence, the defendant argued, in essence, that because the Commonwealth […]