Com. v. Meier, 00-P-1163.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2002
• Docket Number: No. 00-P-1163.,00-P-1163.
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Brigitte R. MEIER.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

776 N.E.2d 1034

56 Mass. App. Ct. 278

COMMONWEALTH v. Brigitte R. MEIER.

No. 00-P-1163.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued April 3, 2001.

Decided October 18, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

William A. Korman, Boston, for the defendant.

Alex G. Philipson, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: BECK, RAPOZA, & BERRY, JJ.

RAPOZA, J.

The defendant, claiming the trial judge erroneously denied her motion for a required finding of not guilty, appeals from her conviction of threatening to commit a crime in violation of G.L. c. 275, § 2. We affirm.

Background. Brigitte Meier and Norman Erlich, an attorney, first met in 1994 when Erlich was representing the board of trustees of Foxcroft Manor Condominium, where Meier resided. Erlich filed a lawsuit on behalf of the board in the Middlesex Superior Court, seeking to enjoin Meier from venturing onto the roof of her condominium building and from interfering with repair work being performed by a roofing company. A jury awarded nominal damages against Meier, and a permanent injunction issued, banning her from the roof.

Meier then embarked upon a series of telephone calls and written communications to Erlich.¹ Erlich testified that he first received a threatening telephone call from Meier shortly after the conclusion of the Superior Court civil trial. In that call, she told him that the judge and jury had erred. She then said, "Maybe it's time for me to get a gun, Mr. Erlich." Following this call, Erlich reported Meier's comment, which he considered a threat, to the police, but he did not request the issuance of a criminal complaint. Erlich then wrote to Meier, but only to ask that she cease all contact with him, a request she ignored.

As a result of the litigation between Meier and the Foxcroft Manor Condominium, Meier incurred legal bills with the law firm that had represented her. When she failed to pay the resulting debt, the firm retained an attorney, Richard Burpee, to facilitate its collection. Burpee ultimately filed a civil suit on behalf of the firm against Meier, which resulted in a judgment against her for approximately four thousand dollars. Meier wrote to Erlich on May 4, 1999, and asserted that he was "the motor behind" Burpee's subsequent effort to execute on the judgment, claiming that Erlich had "pushed Burpee to execute." In her letter, Meier referred to Erlich as "a back alley crook" and "immensely sick," accusing him of extortion, corruption, sadomasochism, and of making false accusations against her. She added that she had "no further obligation to respect the law."

On May 19, 1999, Burpee made two telephone calls to Meier to discuss payment of the judgment. During the first conversation, she asked for additional time to pay the debt. Burpee testified that when he called Meier a second time to respond to her request, she told him that "[i]f Mr. Erlich continued to torture her ... she would get a gun. She would shoot him, and then she would shoot herself." Burpee interpreted these words to be a threat against Erlich and, although they were not personally acquainted, he telephoned Erlich and told him of Meier's statements.

Following the call from Burpee, Erlich was fearful for his safety. He went to the police station and filed a report, and a complaint was issued in the Boston Municipal Court charging Meier with threatening to commit assault and battery, in violation of G.L. c. 275, § 2. At the bench trial, Meier testified that her statements to Burpee were not threats, but merely reflected her exasperation in dealing with the attorneys. She claimed that she was "blowing off steam" and that, rather than being a threat, her statements were "an expression of pain and despair."

Motion for required finding of not guilty. There was sufficient evidence adduced at trial that the defendant expressed an intent to shoot Erlich in circumstances that could reasonably have caused him to fear that she had the ability to carry out that threat. See G.L. c. 275, § 2; Commonwealth v. Robicheau, 421 Mass. 176, 183, 654 N.E.2d 1196 (1995); Commonwealth v. Ditsch, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 1005, 1005, 475 N.E.2d 1235 (1985); Commonwealth v. Troy T., 54 Mass.App.Ct. 520, 524-528, 766 N.E.2d 519 (2002). Denial of the motion was proper.

Although the defendant argues that her statements were expressions of exasperation and despair rather than threats, the Commonwealth produced sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. "A threat is the expression of an intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage on another'.... In analyzing a putative threat, we eschew a technical parsing of the words used and instead consider the entire context in which a statement is made, including the defendant's actions and demeanor at the time, and prior communications between the defendant and the recipient." Id. at 528, 766 N.E.2d 519, quoting from Commonwealth v. Ditsch, supra. Standing alone, the words uttered by Meier were unambiguous threats to shoot Erlich if he did not stop "torturing" her.² Moreover, it was reasonable to infer from the broader context of the statements that she intended them as threats. Meier had already exhibited anger toward Erlich in a series of letters, the last of which was dated two weeks prior to the threats. In those communications, she expressed her belief that Erlich was the "motor behind Burpee" and his collection efforts. Her varied characterizations of Erlich's actions all indicated her view...