Commonwealth v. Muckle (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-139-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 14-P-1283 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. PAUL MUCKLE. No. 14-P-1283. Suffolk. September 10, 2015. – October 3, 2016. Present: Green, Rubin, & Hanlon, JJ. Intimidation of Witness. Threatening. Stalking. District Court, Jurisdiction. Boston Municipal Court. Practice, Criminal, Duplicative convictions, Lesser included offense, Instructions to jury. Complaint received and sworn to in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on April 12, 2012. The case was tried before Annette Forde, J., and a motion to vacate was heard by her. Edward Gauthier for the defendant. Zachary Hillman, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. HANLON, J. After a jury trial in the Boston Municipal Court, the defendant was convicted of intimidating a person furthering a court proceeding in violation of G. L. c. 268, § 13B (count 1); stalking in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43 (count 2); threatening to commit a crime in violation of G. L. c. 275, § 2 (count 3); and unlawful wiretapping in violation of G. L. c. 272, § 99 (count 4). Afterwards, he filed a motion to vacate his conviction on count 1, which was allowed, and that count was dismissed. We have before us the Commonwealth’s appeal of that dismissal, and the defendant’s cross appeal of his remaining convictions on all counts except count 4. We reinstate the defendant’s conviction on count 1 and affirm the other judgments. We remand the case to the trial court for imposition of the original sentences imposed after trial. Background. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the jury could have found the following facts:[1] At some point prior to 2009, the defendant’s mother, Irene Wood, obtained a loan from Wells Fargo Bank (Wells Fargo). Subsequently, the defendant filed suit against Wells Fargo in Superior Court, alleging that his mother’s loan was predatory, fraudulent, and unenforceable. Thereafter, the defendant filed another suit against Wells Fargo, among others, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Wells Fargo retained the law firm of Nelson, Mullens, Riley and Scarborough (Nelson, Mullens) as defense counsel, and when Sean Higgins joined Nelson, Mullens in February, 2009, he was assigned to work on the ongoing case. Because the defendant was representing himself pro se in the Federal suit, he and Higgins communicated […]