33 Mass. App. Ct. 776 | Mass. App. Ct. | 1992
The defendant, in conjunction with others, hurled eggs against the outside wall of a Hindu Temple.
“Whoever willfully, intentionally and without right, or wantonly and without cause, destroys, defaces, mars,*777 or injures a church, synagogue or other building [of certain specified types] . . . shall be punished . . . .”
This appeal requires us to interpret this portion of the statute. Penal statutes must be strictly construed, but “this maxim is a guide for resolving ambiguity rather than a rigid requirement that we interpret each statute in the manner most favorable to defendants.” Commonwealth v. Gagnon, 387 Mass. 567, 569 (1982), quoting from Simon v. Solomon, 385 Mass. 91, 102-103 (1982). We assign language its ordinary meaning, where, as here, the statute is clear and unambiguous. See Commonwealth v. Gagnon, 387 Mass. at 569.
The linchpin in the defendant’s argument is that because the eggs which struck the temple “completely washed off,”
Judgment affirmed.
To those who engage in such malicious, immature, or bigoted acts, this offensive practice is called “egging.”
following the presentation of the Commonwealth’s case at trial, the judge dismissed two other, related indictments. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on a fourth indictment.
This argument has been styled the “soap and water” test.
The defendant’s reliance on Commonwealth v. Schuchardt, 408 Mass. 347 (1990), a case discussing G. L. c. 266, § 127, is inapposite: the language and purpose of § 127 are quite different from those of § 127A. See G. L. c. 266, § 127, as appearing in St. 1982, c. 229, § 2.
The defendant’s other argument regarding limitation of cross-examination is of no avail, for the reasons given in the Commonwealth’s brief.