Commonwealth v. McDonald, 462 Mass. 236

Complaint charged the defendant with criminal harassment under G. L. c. 265, § 43A (a) for acts around May 2009.
Complainant testified a white truck driver-identified as the defendant repeatedly used a route past her home at about 4 p.m.
Police informed the defendant to avoid the area after learning residents feared his presence and that photos were taken.
A school bus driver corroborated a pattern of the defendant driving the route, looping, and passing the bus stop at 4 p.m.
The jury-waived trial resulted in a conviction; the Appeals Court affirmed; the defendant sought further appellate review.
The trial judge later entered judgments: conviction reversed, finding set aside, and judgment for the defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Commonwealth prove all elements of § 43A (a)?	Commonwealth contends pattern, intent, alarm, distress, and willful malice shown.	Evidence fails to show targeting and malicious intent beyond innocuous acts.	No; evidence insufficient to prove elements beyond fear alone.
Was the evidence sufficient to prove a three-or-more-act pattern over time?	Repeated driving and looking at the house constitute a pattern on multiple days.	Acts were innocuous without tailored targeting or malice toward complainant.	Insufficient; three-act pattern not proven with targeted malice.
Did the trial court err in treating police caution as proof of harassment?	Police warning reflected ongoing conduct causing fear of residents.	Warning cannot justify criminal harassment absent independent evidence of malice.	Error; caution alone cannot sustain conviction.
Did the complainant's subjective fear suffice to sustain the conviction?	Subjective fear is a necessary component of 'seriously alarmed'.	Fear alone cannot prove willful and malicious conduct toward a specific person.	Not alone; requires additional evidence of targeting or malicious intent.
Is the complaint's time-frame and count sufficient under the statutory language?	Statute requires pattern over a period directed at a specific person.	Complaint insufficient to describe the required three acts across time.	Complaint defective; cannot sustain conviction.

Commonwealth v. Welch, 444 Mass. 80 (Mass. 2005) (establishes three-act requirement and intent focus under § 43A (a))
Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt))
Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 384 Mass. 13 (Mass. 1981) (cautions against stacking inferences in criminal harassment analysis)
Commonwealth v. O’Neil, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 284 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (malice may be shown by intentional conduct without justification)
Commonwealth v. Clemens, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 915 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) (innocent initial encounters cannot prove harassment without malice)
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 444 Mass. 102 (Mass. 2005) (illustrates potential; focus on demeanor and threatening conduct)
Rauseo v. Rauseo, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 911 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001) (abuse-prevention context where seemingly neutral acts may be harassing)
Commonwealth v. Paton, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 215 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005) (police contact and stalking-like conduct with persistent pattern)