Commonwealth v. Valentin, AC 16-P-245

Background

Jane obtained a restraining order against Walton Valentin on June 24, 2013; the order remained in effect through January 7, 2014.
On October 29, 2013, Valentin confronted Jane at a restaurant (Chau Chow City), allegedly slapped her, and later called her repeatedly while she was at police stations reporting the incident.
After returning to a friend's apartment, Valentin unlawfully entered the bedroom closet in the morning, confronted Jane and her friend Susan with a knife, and a 911 call and police observations corroborated a violent disturbance and damaged apartment.
On November 9, 2013, Jane reported being abducted at gunpoint and assaulted; Valentin was later arrested (acquitted of some November charges at trial).
At a pretrial hearing, recorded jail calls showed Valentin pressured Jane while incarcerated to avoid testifying (urging invocation of the Fifth Amendment); the judge found Jane unavailable and applied forfeiture by wrongdoing to admit certain hearsay statements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Jane's hearsay under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing	Commonwealth: Valentin procured Jane's unavailability by threats/pressure in recorded calls; forfeiture applies and her statements are admissible if reliable	Valentin: Collusion to invoke Fifth Amendment doesn’t meet test where defendant wanted her to testify and Commonwealth could have granted immunity	Court: Forfeiture properly applied—recorded calls showed intent to procure unavailability; reliability independently corroborated; Commonwealth not required to grant immunity
Sufficiency of evidence for stalking in violation of 209A (§ 43(b))	Commonwealth: Three separate acts on Oct 29 (slap at restaurant, calls at police station, confrontation at apartment) satisfy “pattern…over a period of time” plus violation of restraining order	Valentin: Acts all occurred same day, so not over a “period of time”; also challenges proof defendant knew of order given apparent date error on the order	Court: "Over a period of time" may encompass acts on same day if distinct and separated by time; jury could infer restraining order was served and defendant knew of it; evidence sufficient
Reasonable-doubt jury instruction	Commonwealth: Judge’s instruction ("firmly convinced" / "abiding conviction") adequately conveyed standard	Valentin: Failure to use Russell’s later-prescribed "moral certainty" phrasing was constitutional error	Court: Instruction, viewed as a whole, met due process; Russell issued after trial and was supervisory refinement, not a constitutional requirement here
Court’s response to jury question about Chao Chow incident	Commonwealth: Jury may convict on sufficient uninvited/intentional alarming conduct even if slapping not proved	Valentin: Judge’s answer allowed conviction on a theory unsupported by evidence (i.e., mere presence)	Court: Answer appropriate; evidence supported finding of willful malicious conduct at restaurant that could cause substantial emotional distress even absent proven slapping

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 444 Mass. 526 (doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing explained)
Commonwealth v. Szerlong, 457 Mass. 858 (forfeiture applied where defendant procured witness unavailability)
Commonwealth v. Russell, 470 Mass. 464 (adoption of uniform "moral certainty" reasonable-doubt instruction)
Commonwealth v. Brewer, 472 Mass. 307 (limits on judicially granted immunity; unique circumstances required)
Commonwealth v. Vacher, 469 Mass. 425 (discussing circumstances for limited immunity)
Commonwealth v. Curtis, 388 Mass. 637 (compulsory process and immunity discussion)
Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for viewing evidence on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Kwiatkowski, 418 Mass. 543 (meaning of "series of acts" for stalking statute)
Commonwealth v. Sellon, 380 Mass. 220 (viewing jury instruction adequacy in context)
Commonwealth v. Webster, 59 Mass. 295 (historical source of "moral certainty" language)