113 N.E.3d 382
Mass. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Elisabeth Telcinord was charged under G. L. c. 209A, § 7 for violating a protective order that directed her to stay at least 50 yards from the victim and to stay away from his residence at 13 Hall Street.
- She received personal service of the order at 8:15 P.M. on Aug. 4, 2016; the incident occurred about 3 A.M. on Aug. 5, 2016.
- A Randolph officer parked in front of 15 Hall Street and observed the victim drive by, followed three car-lengths behind by the defendant, who pulled over and stopped on Hall Street near the victim’s residence.
- The defendant admitted to the officer she was following the victim, said she thought she was in compliance by her distance from the house, and was arrested; she identified herself at booking.
- At trial a jury convicted Telcinord of violating the stay-away portion of the c. 209A order; she was sentenced to one year probation and a batterer’s program.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence re: violating "stay away" from residence | Commonwealth: defendant parked on victim's street near residence at 3 A.M. intending to confront him; proximity violated order | Telcinord: order vague; could only be violated by intruding on property (i.e., trespass) | Conviction affirmed — presence on the victim's street near residence at night, not accidental, violated stay-away order |
| Vagueness / jury instruction on meaning of "stay away" | Commonwealth: common-sense normative standard suffices; judge may respond to jury with ordinary meaning | Telcinord: phrase is vague; judge erred by telling jury to use common understanding without legal boundaries | No reversible error; normative standard adequate and judge's supplemental instruction did not create substantial risk of miscarriage of justice |
| Prejudice from arrest testimony | Commonwealth: officer identification and booking are admissible to identify defendant; arrest testimony explains police conduct | Telcinord: testimony about arrest unduly prejudicial and risked conviction based on arrest rather than elements | No substantial risk of miscarriage of justice; identification and context for investigation admissible; jury instructions countered prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gordon, 407 Mass. 340 (1990) (interpreting "vacate" to include "remain away," explaining protective-order purpose)
- Commonwealth v. Delaney, 425 Mass. 587 (1997) (elements required to prove violation of c. 209A)
- Commonwealth v. Collier, 427 Mass. 385 (1998) (knowledge of order and violation elements under c. 209A)
- Commonwealth v. Bohmer, 374 Mass. 368 (1978) (void-for-vagueness doctrine; words need not have mathematical precision)
- Commonwealth v. Orlando, 371 Mass. 732 (1977) (normative standard for disruptive conduct; imprecise but comprehensible statutory language permissible)
- Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (2014) (arresting officer's identification testimony admissible to prove identity)