Commonwealth v. Dobson
AC 16-P-670
| Mass. App. Ct. | Oct 3, 2017Background
- Defendant Janera W. Dobson (mother) was charged and convicted, after a jury-waived trial in Boston Municipal Court, of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon for striking her 5‑year‑old son with a leather belt, leaving visible red marks on his face and leg.
- Police responded May 2, 2014; officer observed marks and photographed them; defendant admitted she struck the child with a belt, stating she intended to hit his buttocks but hit his face instead.
- Commonwealth’s evidence: officer testimony and three photographs; defendant’s sole defense at trial was her own testimony that the spanking was disciplinary for misbehavior at school.
- On appeal defendant argued the conduct was privileged parental discipline under Commonwealth v. Dorvil and therefore the Commonwealth failed to disprove that affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The appellate court reviewed whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, a rational factfinder could conclude the force was unreasonable and thus defeat the first prong of the parental-discipline privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether force was reasonable under parental-discipline privilege | Commonwealth: evidence shows belt used in a manner capable of causing serious harm; marks and circumstances permit finding of unreasonable force | Dobson: spanking was disciplinary, intended for buttocks; privilege protects reasonable parental discipline | Held for Commonwealth: evidence sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude force was unreasonable |
| Whether Commonwealth disproved parental-discipline privilege beyond reasonable doubt | Commonwealth: photographs, officer testimony, and nature of wound permit disproving privilege prong(s) | Dobson: Commonwealth failed to disprove reasonableness element | Held: Commonwealth met burden as to prong one (and court notes prong three also could be disproved) |
| Whether a belt can be a dangerous weapon in this context | Commonwealth: use of a belt against a child can be a dangerous weapon depending on manner of use | Dobson: implied that belt use was ordinary corporal discipline | Held: belt may be a dangerous weapon when used to strike a child and leave marks; conviction supported |
| Whether factual gaps (positioning, intent) required acquittal | Dobson: absence of evidence about positions or how strike landed creates reasonable doubt | Commonwealth: trier of fact may rely on common sense to infer intent and reject defendant’s explanation | Held: gaps did not preclude a rational inference that defendant intended to strike the face; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 472 Mass. 1 (recognition and elements of parental-discipline privilege)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing required-finding motions/Jackson standard)
- Commonwealth v. Longo, 402 Mass. 482 (permissible inferential reasoning by factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Lao, 443 Mass. 770 (factfinder may rely on experience and common sense)
- Commonwealth v. Tevlin, 433 Mass. 305 (definition and treatment of "dangerous weapon")
- Commonwealth v. Moquette, 439 Mass. 697 (belt as dangerous weapon against child)
- Commonwealth v. Torres, 442 Mass. 554 (discussion of parental-discipline limits)
- Commonwealth v. Packer, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 585 (factfinder decides reasonableness of parental discipline)