Posts tagged "McIsaac"

McIsaac v. Porter (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-172-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-135                                   Appeals Court   KELLY McISAAC  vs.  TIM PORTER.     No. 16-P-135.   Suffolk.     October 14, 2016. – December 9, 2016.   Present:  Vuono, Massing, & Sacks, JJ.     Abuse Prevention.  Protective Order.  Evidence, Cross-examination.  Words, “Abuse.”     Complaint for protection from abuse filed in the Suffolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on January 21, 2014.   A motion to extend an abuse prevention order was heard by Megan Christopher, J.     Joseph P. Calandrelli for the defendant. Adam J. Malinowski for the plaintiff.     SACKS, J.  The defendant appeals from a Probate and Family Court order making permanent a G. L. c. 209A abuse prevention order (209A order) issued one year earlier.  He argues that the judge erred by (1) making the order permanent based solely upon the plaintiff’s fear arising out of a past incident of serious physical abuse, without any finding that the plaintiff reasonably feared imminent serious physical harm; and (2) limiting defense counsel’s ability to cross-examine the plaintiff at the renewal hearing.  We conclude that the judge properly extended the order, because the statute authorizes a judge to issue or to extend a 209A order where, as here, the judge finds that the victim is still reasonably suffering fear due to a past incident of serious physical abuse, regardless of whether the victim also reasonably fears imminent serious physical harm.[1]  We also discern no abuse of discretion in the judge’s limitation on defense counsel’s cross-examination.  We therefore affirm. Background.  In late January, 2014, the plaintiff successfully applied for the 209A order.  We recount the circumstances as stated in her supporting affidavit.  She and the defendant had dated for about six years and had lived together for about six months, until early January, 2014.  The defendant was “much bigger” than she was, weighing 270 pounds and standing just under six feet tall.  The defendant had told her he had depression; the defendant drank alcohol to escape, causing him to become aggressive and violent. His violence toward the plaintiff had escalated in the few months prior to her application for the 209A order.  In the summer of 2013, the defendant dragged her across the room by her feet to prevent her from leaving their residence.  In August, 2013, she and the defendant had a disagreement during which he grabbed her eyeglasses from […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 9, 2016 at 6:04 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,