Posts tagged "C.R."

A.T. v. C.R. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-163-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-1408                                       Appeals Court   A.T.  vs.  C.R. No. 14-P-1408. Essex.     June 3, 2015. – October 16, 2015.   Present:  Cypher, Berry, Meade, Hanlon, & Blake, JJ.[1] Civil Harassment.  Harassment Prevention.  Statute, Construction.  Intent.  Evidence, Intent.  Jurisdiction, Juvenile Court.  Juvenile Court, Jurisdiction.  Constitutional Law, Sentence, Cruel and unusual punishment.  Words, “Intimidation,” “Threat.”       Complaint for protection from harassment filed in the Essex County Division of the Juvenile Court Department on May 23, 2014.   The case was heard by Garrett J. McManus, J., and a motion for a new trial was considered by him.     Janice Bassil (John E. Oh with her) for the defendant. Charlene A. Caldeira (Stephen MacKenzie with her) for the plaintiff.      HANLON, J.  After a hearing, a judge of the Juvenile Court extended a harassment prevention order against the juvenile defendant.  See G. L. c. 258E, §§ 2-4.   The defendant appeals, arguing, among other things, that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence of harassment under the statute and that the Legislature did not intend for the harassment prevention statute to apply in circumstances such as these.  We affirm. Background.  The judge stated at the beginning of the hearing that he had reviewed the affidavit filed by the plaintiff and her father at the time of an earlier, ex parte hearing.[2]  G. L. c. 258E, § 5.  He then heard testimony from both the plaintiff and the defendant.  He made it clear in his findings that he found the plaintiff credible; the essential underlying facts are not in dispute. At the time of the incidents, the defendant was eleven years old and in the sixth grade at a small private school; there were only twelve students in his class, and the plaintiff was one of them.  The parties had been friends for two years and had become “boyfriend and girlfriend” within the week preceding the events at issue.  On March 21, 2014, the defendant contacted the plaintiff through a telephone video chat program called “FaceTime.”  The tone of the conversation initially was friendly, but it changed when the defendant said to the plaintiff, “Sometimes in math when I act like I’m staring at nothing I’m actually staring at your big jugs of milk.”  This made her “[s]ad and afraid,” “angry,” and “embarrassed,” and she hung up the telephone.  In addition, she later learned that one of the defendant’s […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 16, 2015 at 3:52 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,