Commonwealth v. Muckle
90 Mass. App. Ct. 384
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant (pro se in federal suit) engaged in repeated emails, voicemails, and mass mailings to Sean Higgins, an attorney for Wells Fargo, including violent and bomb-related language after adverse rulings.
- Defendant was convicted after jury trial in Boston Municipal Court of: intimidation (G. L. c. 268, § 13B) (count 1), stalking (c. 265, § 43) (count 2), threatening to commit a crime (c. 275, § 2) (count 3), and unlawful wiretapping (count 4).
- Trial court later allowed defendant’s motion to vacate/dismiss count 1 for lack of District/Boston Municipal Court jurisdiction under G. L. c. 218, § 26 (statute references “intimidation of a witness or juror under section thirteen B”).
- Commonwealth appealed the dismissal; defendant cross-appealed remaining convictions (except count 4).
- Appeals court reinstated conviction on count 1, affirmed other convictions, and remanded for imposition of original sentences; also ordered clerical correction to mittimus/docket regarding suspension on count 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether G. L. c. 218, § 26 gives District/Boston Mun. Ct. jurisdiction over prosecutions under § 13B when the victim is not a “witness or juror” | § 26’s citation to § 13B was meant to include prosecutions under the statute as amended, so municipal courts have jurisdiction for intimidation of persons "furthering a proceeding." | § 26’s plain language grants concurrent jurisdiction only for "intimidation of a witness or juror," so municipal court lacked jurisdiction over intimidation of other persons. | Reversed dismissal; municipal court has jurisdiction for the § 13B offense charged (conviction reinstated). |
| Whether stalking (c. 265, § 43) and threatening to commit a crime (c. 275, § 2) are duplicative / lesser-included offenses | N/A (Commonwealth defended both convictions) | Stalking subsumes threat-to-commit-crime, so one conviction should be dismissed as duplicative. | Rejected; crimes have different elements; both convictions upheld. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for stalking conviction | N/A (Commonwealth maintained sufficiency) | Insufficient evidence of a threat intended to place victim in imminent fear. | Sufficient evidence (emails, bomb reference, threats); stalking conviction affirmed. |
| Jury-instruction and unanimity errors (various) | Jury instructions were adequate; no requested lesser-included instruction or unanimity charge was sought. | Judge erred by not sua sponte instructing on harassment, unanimity, and by using ambiguous words like "harm" or "punish." | No reversible error; instructions sufficient; no substantial risk of miscarriage of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cote-Whitacre v. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 446 Mass. 350 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Rotondi v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 463 Mass. 644 (statute construed to effectuate legislative purpose)
- Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 464 Mass. 365 (statutory interpretation: consider cause and mischief to be remedied)
- Harvard Crimson, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 445 Mass. 745 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Mailhot v. Travelers Ins. Co., 375 Mass. 342 (avoid literal reading that yields intolerable result)
- Rodman v. Rodman, 470 Mass. 539 (statutory construction guidance)
- Wilcox v. Riverside Park Enters., Inc., 21 Mass. App. Ct. 419 (titles do not control statute’s plain language)
- Commonwealth v. Fernandes, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 455 (indictment caption vs. body; body governs)
- Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 459 Mass. 422 (construing § 13B elements and related jurisdictional discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Deberry, 441 Mass. 211 (jurisdiction and amended statutory scope example)
- Della Jacova v. Widett, 355 Mass. 266 (jurisdictional limits in municipal court context)
- Commonwealth v. Vick, 454 Mass. 418 (elements test for lesser-included offense/double jeopardy)
- Commonwealth v. Kelly, 470 Mass. 682 (standard for reviewing unpreserved jury-instruction claims)
- Commonwealth v. Tavares, 471 Mass. 430 (judge not required to give unrequested lesser-included instruction sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Julien, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 679 (failure to give unanimity instruction sua sponte not reversible absent request)
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 449 Mass. 1 (no magic words required in jury charge)
- Commonwealth v. Isle, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 226 (contemporaneous reading of § 13B branches)
- Commonwealth v. King, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 113 (prosecution under expanded § 13B tried in Superior Court)