Commonwealth v. Sullivan
15 N.E.3d 690
Mass.2014Background
- At ~9:30 PM, R.M., a female MIT student, was walking alone when a car driven by Joseph D. Sullivan stopped; he called to her, used a high-pitched "come over" tone, and beckoned her toward his car.
- Sullivan exited his vehicle and approached within an arm’s length; R.M. stepped away and continued walking; he returned to his car and drove off, then reversed and followed her onto a dimly lit, nearly deserted street.
- He stopped again, exited with the engine running and door open, approached closely so R.M. smelled an odor, angrily demanded she "get in his car," and gestured as if to put his arm around her; R.M. avoided contact, recited his license plate, and then he left; R.M. ran to her dorm and reported the incident.
- Sullivan was convicted by a jury of attempted kidnapping and of "accosting or annoying a person of the opposite sex" under G. L. c. 272, § 53; he was acquitted of assault with intent to commit a felony; Appeals Court affirmed the kidnapping conviction and reversed on § 53; SJC granted further review limited to the § 53 conviction.
- The SJC analyzed whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the two distinct elements of § 53 — that the conduct was (1) "offensive" (sexual in nature, explicit or implicit) and (2) "disorderly" (e.g., creating a physically offensive condition or threatening) — and whether counsel was ineffective in two specified respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Sullivan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under G. L. c. 272, § 53 (offensive element) | Conduct (beckoning, high-pitched sexualized voice, pursuit, demands to "get in his car") had sexual connotation and would be offensive to a reasonable person | The conduct was not sexually explicit and therefore not "offensive" under § 53 | Held: Sufficient — jury could find the conduct implicitly sexual and offensive to a reasonable person |
| Sufficiency under § 53 (disorderly element) | The pursuit, close approach, angry demand, and gesture created a physically offensive/threatening condition causing fear of imminent harm | Conduct did not involve touching or explicit threat, so not "disorderly" | Held: Sufficient — circumstances could be found to create a physically offensive/threatening condition |
| Vagueness of G. L. c. 272, § 53 | N/A | Statute is void for vagueness; "accosting" and "annoying" lack objective standard | Held: Rejected — statute is not unconstitutionally vague; "offensive" and "disorderly" have defined meanings in precedent |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to jury instruction on "accosting/disorderly" | N/A | Counsel should have objected because the judge omitted parts of Chou definition and conflated elements, prejudicing defense | Held: Rejected — instruction covered the theory applicable to the evidence (physically offensive condition); counsel's failure to object was not ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (benchmark for sufficiency review — evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Commonwealth v. Cahill, 446 Mass. 778 (defines "offensive" and analyzes physically offensive workplace conduct under § 53)
- Commonwealth v. Chou, 433 Mass. 229 (authoritative definition of "disorderly" including physically offensive or threatening conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Ramirez, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 9 (physical contact not required to create physically offensive condition; context matters)
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims)