Commonwealth v. Isaiah Graham.
23-P-0849
Mass. App. Ct.Jun 4, 2025Background
- Isaiah Graham was convicted of assault and battery on a household member, assault and battery, and witness intimidation following a jury trial in Massachusetts Superior Court.
- The incident occurred during an overnight stay at the victim’s apartment (where Graham’s fiancée lived with her daughters and grandchildren) and involved a prolonged altercation with escalating violence.
- Graham accused the victim of infidelity, physically assaulted her over several hours, and threatened to have her killed if she reported the assault.
- After the altercation, the victim called 911; police responded to find her visibly injured and distressed.
- Graham appealed his convictions, raising issues regarding sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, the admissibility of a 911 call, and statutory clarity of the witness intimidation penalty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence (Intimidation) | Evidence suffices for conviction | No proof threats linked to crime or intent to impede investigation | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed |
| Specific Unanimity Instruction | Not required—single course of conduct | Multiple incidents could cause juror confusion | Not required; one continuous episode on Oct. 21 |
| Admissibility of 911 Call | Proper as excited utterance, probative | Unduly prejudicial bad act evidence | Admissible; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Statutory Clarity (Penalty) | Statute clear and gives notice | Statute ambiguous, penalty unclear for charged conduct | Statute unambiguous; penalty applies as written |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (clarifies standard for sufficiency of evidence: evidence viewed in prosecution’s favor)
- Commonwealth v. King, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 113 (jury may infer intent to intimidate from circumstances, not explicit threats)
- Commonwealth v. Shea, 467 Mass. 788 (unanimity instruction not required for continuous course of conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Nunes, 430 Mass. 1 (excited utterance exception for spontaneous statements)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 389 Mass. 265 (statutes must be read as a whole in interpreting penalty provisions)