Commonwealth v. Dorvil, 472 Mass. 1

Background

Defendant Jean Dorvil was convicted after a bench trial of assault and battery for spanking his nearly three-year-old daughter on a public sidewalk and of threatening to commit a crime at the police station; the kick charge and one other count were dismissed or resulted in acquittal.
Two police officers observed a public altercation; one testified he saw a kick and a smack to the child’s clothed buttocks; the other’s testimony was less certain. The child’s mother and Dorvil testified the contact was a brief disciplinary tap during play and not injurious.
At the police station later the same day, an officer testified Dorvil yelled and spat and threatened to "box" him; Dorvil disputed parts of that account but admitted saying "we can go box it out." The threats conviction was affirmed on appeal and is not before the court.
On appeal Dorvil argued the spanking fell within a parental privilege to use reasonable physical force in discipline; the Appeals Court affirmed, finding the conduct outside the privilege because the father was angry and the child was too young to understand.
The Supreme Judicial Court granted review limited to the assault-and-battery conviction to define the scope of any common-law parental privilege and reversed that conviction, articulating a three-prong test for the defense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Massachusetts recognizes a parental privilege to use physical force in disciplining a child	Commonwealth did not contest existence of some parental privilege but argued facts showed Dorvil acted out of anger and used impermissible force on a very young child	Dorvil argued common-law parental privilege permits reasonable force to discipline a minor child and that his brief tap was reasonable and for safety	Court recognized a parental-privilege defense and adopted a three-prong test: force must be reasonable; reasonably related to safeguarding or welfare/discipline; and must not cause or create substantial risk of physical harm beyond fleeting pain/minor transient marks, gross degradation, or severe mental distress.
Burden of proof for the defense	Commonwealth argued defendant's conduct fell outside the defense on the facts	Dorvil argued Commonwealth failed to disprove the privilege beyond a reasonable doubt	Court held that when defense is properly before the trier of fact, Commonwealth must disprove at least one prong beyond a reasonable doubt.
Relevance of parent’s emotional state (anger) to availability of privilege	Commonwealth argued anger and loss of control could show discipline was not privileged	Dorvil maintained that reasonable force should not be defeated solely by evidence of anger	Court rejected a subjective-motive test; emotional state is not dispositive—reasonableness is assessed objectively.
Role of child's age as categorical bar	Commonwealth contended very young age (about 2) could render any chastisement unjustified	Dorvil argued child’s demonstrated understanding made the tap reasonable	Court refused a bright-line age cutoff; age and capacity are factors for factfinder but not an automatic bar.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Porro, 458 Mass. 526 (discusses statutory punishments vs. common-law elements for assault)
Commonwealth v. McCan, 277 Mass. 199 (definition of assault and battery as intentional and unjustified use of force)
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 445 Mass. 1003 (noting this court had not previously resolved scope of parental-privilege defense)
Commonwealth v. Rubeck, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 396 (Appeals Court recognition that jury instruction on parental privilege was warranted)
Commonwealth v. O'Connor, 407 Mass. 663 (discusses absence of statutory parental right and limits when defendant not in loco parentis)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (plurality opinion recognizing parental liberty interest in childrearing)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (parental rights to direct upbringing and education protected by Due Process)
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (discusses substantive due process liberty in education and upbringing)