Commonwealth v. Martinez, 8 N.E.3d 780

Defendant and codefendant planned to rob the occupant of a third-floor apartment at 91 Nashua Street.
They entered the building via a main gate requiring a code and then the third-floor apartment.
Inside, they assaulted Bastarache and his guest; Curran, residing in the second-floor unit, investigated with a baseball bat.
Curran entered the apartment, encountered the assailants, and was stabbed and pushed into a bedroom door by the codefendant.
Jury convicted the defendant of home invasion against Curran; defendant moved for required findings of not guilty on that count.
Statutory question: whether G. L. c. 265, § 18C, applies to an assault on a non-occupant present in the dwelling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 18C apply when the victim is present but not an occupant?	Curran was present in the dwelling, and the defendant knew or had reason to know one or more persons were present.	The victim was not an occupant; the defendant did not remain with knowledge Curran was present.	Yes; knowledge that someone is present suffices under § 18C.
Are either of the two scienter alternatives required to prove § 18C?	Evidence shows the defendant entered knowing someone was present or remained after learning so.	Only one specific scienter path may apply; not clearly satisfied here.	The statute allows either alternative; either entering with knowledge or remaining after learning suffices.

Commonwealth v. Brown, 431 Mass. 772 (2000) (plain-language statute interpretation)
Victor V. v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 793 (1996) (interpretation of present-for-purpose knowledge in statutes)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 458 Mass. 1012 (2010) (two alternative scienter elements allowed)
Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 426 Mass. 391 (1998) (two alternative scienter clauses; framing of the § 18C elements)
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 556 (2006) (interpretation of who need not be present for conviction)