12 N.E.3d 348
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant Timothy Forbes attended a youth basketball tournament in Springfield, where his two sons played in a fifth/sixth grade championship.
- After the game, Forbes engaged Feliciano, the opposing coach, with a fighting stance and began kicking and punching him.
- Forbes pinned Feliciano, placing his mouth near Feliciano’s neck and biting Feliciano’s left ear.
- A crowd pulled Forbes away; Feliciano’s wife hit Forbes to separate them; Forbes spit out a severed ear piece on the floor.
- A surgeon could not reattach the severed ear; the bite lasted roughly 20–25 seconds; Forbes was convicted of mayhem (first theory) and assault and battery causing serious bodily injury, then partial relief for duplicative conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports mayhem, first theory, specific intent to maim or disfigure | Feliciano argues no specific intent shown given chaotic scene | Forbes contends no sufficient evidence of malicious intent | Yes; sufficient evidence of specific intent to maim or disfigure |
| What the proper interpretation of 'an ear' in mayhem | Commonwealth argues 'off' modifies 'tears' not 'cuts' | Forbes argues broader interpretation unnecessary | Ambiguity resolved in Commonwealth’s favor; substantial portion torn off suffices |
| Whether assault and battery causing serious bodily injury is duplicative of mayhem | Commonwealth asserts separate elements exist | Conviction duplicative because mayhem first theory already proves the injuries | Vacate assault and battery causing serious bodily injury conviction; duplicative; affirm mayhem |
| Whether the court properly treated the two theories of mayhem as independent bases | Two theories provide distinct liability bases | The theories maymerely multiple routes to same outcome | Two theories recognized as independent; proper application to evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (specific intent may be inferred from conduct of assault)
- Commonwealth v. Cleary, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 214 (1996) (intent to maim or disfigure may be inferred from the severity of attack)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 190 (1980) (mayhem can be satisfied by substantial ear injury)
- Commonwealth v. Hap Lay, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 27 (2005) (mayhem statutory interpretation guidance)
- Commonwealth v. McPherson, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 125 (2009) (duplication issues with mayhem and lesser offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Rivas, 466 Mass. 184 (2013) (vacate lesser conviction when duplicative)
- Commonwealth v. Crocker, 384 Mass. 353 (1981) (long-prevailing test for duplicative convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Vick, 454 Mass. 418 (2009) (focus on statutory elements in duplicative analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Roderiques, 462 Mass. 415 (2012) (element-based analysis for multiple offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Jean-Pierre, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 162 (2005) (interpretation of 'permanent' in serious bodily injury)