Commonwealth v. Dustin, SJC 12036

Defendant Donald Dustin was convicted by a jury in District Court of assault and battery on a family or household member under G. L. c. 265, § 13M(a) after an August 28, 2014 altercation with Stacey D. Rock in a parked car and subsequent driving conduct.
At trial the Commonwealth presented evidence including the defendant’s statement to police that he had just fought with his girlfriend and Rock’s statements to bystanders and police minimizing the incident.
Both Dustin and Rock testified: they had dated for several months, were exclusive "boyfriend-girlfriend," did not live together, spent substantial time together, shared caregiving and daily activities, and the dating relationship continued after the incident.
The defendant did not move for a required finding of not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth’s case; his sufficiency challenge was raised later, so the court reviewed the entire trial record for sufficiency.
The statutory issue was whether the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Dustin and Rock were in a "substantive dating relationship" as defined in G. L. c. 265, § 13M(c)(iii), using the factors set out in the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove a "substantive dating relationship" under G. L. c. 265, § 13M(c)(iii)	Commonwealth: the total trial evidence (testimony, caregiving, exclusivity, shared activities, ring, statements) supports finding a substantive dating relationship	Dustin: evidence insufficient to show relationship met statutory "substantive" criteria (defense contested sufficiency)	Court: Affirmed conviction; evidence taken as whole permitted jury to find a substantive dating relationship beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether trial court should have evaluated sufficiency based only on Commonwealth's case	Commonwealth: not applicable because defendant failed to move for required finding at proper time	Dustin: belated sufficiency challenge should be considered as if timely	Court: motion was untimely; therefore sufficiency review considered the entire trial record rather than only Commonwealth's case

Commonwealth v. Brown, 449 Mass. 747 (discusses timing of required-finding motions and sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Platt, 440 Mass. 396 (standard for sufficiency when defendant moves for required finding)
Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (viewing evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. McGovern, 397 Mass. 863 (standard for inferences and sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Chappee, 397 Mass. 508 (sufficiency and permissible inferences)
C.O. v. M.M., 442 Mass. 648 (use of statutory factors to determine "substantive dating relationship")
E.C.O. v. Compton, 464 Mass. 558 (comparison of c. 209A factors and interpretation)
Ginsberg v. Blacker, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 139 (abuse definitions and related analysis)
Brossard v. West Roxbury Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 417 Mass. 183 (sufficient evidence of "substantive dating" under c. 209A)
Commonwealth v. Hendricks, 452 Mass. 97 (statutory interpretation and culpability standards)