25 N.E.3d 903
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff (DeMayo) owns and lives at a horse-boarding facility; she cares for a horse whose medication and needles went missing.
- Plaintiff installed video surveillance and police added cameras; footage captured the defendant (Quinn) on five occasions inside the barn taking items, rearranging hay, and throwing items into a stall.
- The barn was unsecured and multiple people (owner, husband, customers, an unrelated family) lived on or visited the property; defendant and plaintiff did not know each other.
- Plaintiff filed for a harassment prevention order under G. L. c. 258E; an ex parte order issued December 17, 2013, followed by a contested hearing and a one-year extension.
- Defendant appealed, arguing his acts were not "willful and malicious" and were not "aimed at a specific person" as required by c. 258E.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant's acts were "willful and malicious" under c. 258E | DeMayo argued video showed deliberate property damage and harm to the horse, meeting malice element | Quinn conceded intentionality but contended acts lacked the cruelty/hostility/revenge needed for malice | Court: Acts were willful and malicious — video showed at least three deliberate acts causing property/animal harm; malice inferred |
| Whether acts were "aimed at a specific person" under c. 258E | DeMayo relied on property ownership/care and that plaintiff suffered fear from the acts | Quinn argued he did not know DeMayo, property had many residents/visitors, no evidence he intended to target her | Court: Insufficient evidence that acts were directed specifically at DeMayo (or any specific person); c. 258E requires intent to target the victim on multiple occasions |
| Whether relationship between parties is required for c. 258E | DeMayo noted relationship not strictly required under statute | Quinn emphasized absence of any animus or connection between them | Court: Relationship not required, but here lack of connection and multiple potential targets undercuts finding of targeted conduct |
| Remedy — validity of harassment prevention order extension | Plaintiff sought continuation of order based on findings | Defendant sought vacatur based on insufficiency of targeting element | Court: Vacated the harassment prevention order and remanded for entry of vacatur because targeting element not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Seney v. Morhy, 467 Mass. 58 (2014) (describing c. 258E's purpose to protect against stalking, sexual assault, and criminal harassment and to criminalize violations)
- O'Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415 (2012) (explaining c. 258E requires three or more willful, malicious acts aimed at a specific person)
- Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC v. Mahlowitz, 456 Mass. 627 (2010) (appellate standard for upholding trial court factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 470 Mass. 300 (2014) (interpreting criminal harassment statute to require acts directed at a specific person)
- Commonwealth v. Welch, 444 Mass. 80 (2005) (defining "specific person" as the victim seriously alarmed by the harassment)
- Commonwealth v. McDonald, 462 Mass. 236 (2012) (reversing criminal harassment conviction where conduct lacked sufficient connection to the alleged victim)