Commonwealth v. Lahens

Citation177 N.E.3d 935,100 Mass.App.Ct. 310
Decision Date01 October 2021
Docket NumberNo. 20-P-190,20-P-190
Parties COMMONWEALTH v. Jean LAHENS.
CourtAppeals Court of Massachusetts

Michael P. Gerace, Worcester, for the defendant.

Johanna Black, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: Green, C.J., Blake, & Lemire, JJ.

LEMIRE, J.

After a bench trial, the defendant, Jean Lahens, was convicted on one indictment charging assault with intent to rape, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 24 ; one indictment charging strangulation or suffocation, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15D (b ) ; one indictment charging indecent assault and battery on a person age fourteen or over, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13H ; and one indictment charging assault and battery, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13A. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions of assault with intent to rape, strangulation, and indecent assault and battery.1 Specifically, he claims that the Commonwealth failed to prove the intent element of those offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Background. 1. The Commonwealth's case. Between June 2017 and January 2018, the victim, whom we shall call Olivia,2 was the defendant's tenant, renting one bedroom in the defendant's three-bedroom home in Brockton. Another woman, P.P., rented the second bedroom between April and December of 2017. The defendant resided in the third bedroom. He only rented rooms to females.

Each bedroom was secured by a lock on the door; the defendant had spare keys. A few weeks after moving in, Olivia was in her bedroom with her door locked. She overheard the defendant call out P.P.’s name. When P.P. did not answer, Olivia heard the defendant place a key into the doorknob of her own room and, as the door was about to open, Olivia stated, "Don't you even dare." Olivia subsequently installed a second lock on her door to prevent the defendant from entering her room without her permission.

The defendant often engaged in behavior marked by sexual connotations, which made Olivia feel uncomfortable. When they talked, the defendant touched her hands and back. The defendant sometimes attempted to make conversation with Olivia while wearing a speedo-style undergarment that exposed the outline of his genitals. In one instance, the defendant told Olivia that he had not "been with a woman in two years" and asked her if she "could help him out." Another time, the defendant asked Olivia to "give him [her] friends" who had visited because she was not "ready to sleep with him." When Olivia went to shower, the defendant was regularly in the adjacent hallway, behavior that she found "creepy." As a result, Olivia wore a bathrobe and a towel when she went to shower. At no time did Olivia express interest in the defendant.3

The defendant also sent Olivia a bevy of unwanted and inappropriate text messages. Some text messages questioned why she was not home, and others asked how she was doing. Olivia did not respond to all of these messages. On December 9, 2017, the defendant sent Olivia a text message stating that he could not "figure out why every lady I meet dislike me so much." On December 16, 2017, the defendant asked, "[Wh]at you doing here tonite? Do you want a hangout a bit? After [all] it is the season to be joyful." Olivia did not respond to either text message. The following day, the defendant texted Olivia, "Are you a Nun? Or is it just a personal issue with me that you have? God won[’]t forget your kindness towards me that I promise." In response, Olivia texted, "First of all [I] am a MARRIED WOMAN you are going to stop sending me these kind of messages and acting the way you do.... [I]f you continue [I] might have to go to the police and tell them you are harassing me sexually" (emphasis in original). Olivia believed that the defendant was frustrated because she did not entertain his sexual advances. On December 20, 2017, the defendant apologized and texted that he was "not a monster." The defendant continued to text Olivia over the weeks that followed; she did not respond. Although she had planned to return to the home on January 3, 2018, she decided otherwise in light of an impending snow storm and because of the defendant's text message that asked, "What[’]s up sweet cake?"

When Olivia returned to the home a few days later, she informed the defendant that she was going to move out and find another apartment. An argument ensued, and the defendant forced himself into her bedroom. Olivia called 911, but disconnected the call before speaking with police. The defendant then left her room, and Olivia left the home.4 While Olivia was away, the defendant again sent her numerous text messages asking for her help, for forgiveness, and whether she wanted to rent a different room. Olivia did not respond to any of these messages. She returned to the home on January 20, 2018.

On January 21, 2018, Olivia woke up between 12 and 1 P.M. Wearing a towel and a bathrobe, she proceeded toward the bathroom to take a shower. Because the defendant's bedroom door was ajar, she saw that the defendant was on his bed. She heard music coming from the living room at a low volume. As Olivia finished her shower and turned off the water, the music became noticeably louder. When Olivia opened the bathroom door and stepped into the hallway, the defendant was standing next to the door dressed only in a bathrobe. He grabbed her and, in spite of her efforts to break free, forced her toward his bedroom. Once inside, the defendant locked the door. He pushed Olivia onto his bed so that she was lying on her back. He pinned her down on the bed by her neck, repeatedly exclaiming, "Tell me who is the man now." She struggled to escape his grasp and pleaded with him to let go. Olivia experienced difficulty breathing due to the pressure of his hands on her neck. The defendant was on top of her, with his torso between her legs in a "sexual position." During the assault, her towel and bathrobe unraveled, exposing her vagina. His hands were "all over" her body, including her breasts.

After approximately two minutes, Olivia was able to break free when, in response to a question by the defendant, she stated she had a "medical condition" and that she could not breathe, and the defendant loosened the pressure on her neck. She attempted to scream for help out of the bedroom window, but the defendant covered her mouth with his hand and pulled her away from the window, causing the window to break. The defendant released Olivia after she bit his hand. She ran from his bedroom and called 911, reporting that the defendant had tried to rape her.

Upon their arrival, police officers heard "extremely loud music" coming from the home. Olivia appeared to be "distraught, hysterical, [and] hyperventilating." Officers observed a bloody bite mark on the "cuff area" of the defendant's wrist. The defendant was placed under arrest.

2. The defendant's testimony. The defendant's case consisted solely of his own testimony. With respect to the events that transpired on January 21, 2018, the defendant stated that he turned the music up while Olivia showered. As she left the bathroom, the defendant, in an attempt to be "friendly," grabbed her wrists and hugged her from behind. According to the defendant, Olivia started to throw punches and push him away. He tried "to calm her down" and they ended up on his bed in his bedroom. After struggling for two or three minutes, Olivia told the defendant that her blood pressure was rising, and the defendant stated that he "didn't know [she] had a medical condition" and left her alone. Despite informing the defendant that she was having trouble breathing and needed some fresh air, Olivia screamed out of the bedroom window. He put his hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming, telling her, "I'm not trying to hurt you" and to "just calm down." The defendant denied placing his hands on Olivia's throat, forcing her to have sex with him, or intentionally touching her breasts.

Discussion. Each of the defendant's three claims on appeal challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. The law applicable to our review of such claims is well established. "[W]e ask whether, taking the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, any rational trier of fact could find that each of the essential elements of the crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Santos, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 3, 173 N.E.3d 776 (2021), citing Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677-678, 393 N.E.2d 370 (1979). "Proof of an essential element of a crime may be based on reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, but it may not be based on conjecture." Commonwealth v. Combs, 480 Mass. 55, 61-62, 100 N.E.3d 730 (2018).

1. Assault with intent to rape. First, the defendant claims that the Commonwealth failed to prove his specific intent to rape.5 The defendant avers that his conduct during the attack was not sexual in nature and that any sex he tried to obtain from Olivia prior to the attack was sought consensually.

"The two elements of assault with intent to rape are an assault on the victim and a specific intent by the defendant at the time of the assault to rape the victim." Commonwealth v. Martin, 447 Mass. 274, 287 n.9, 850 N.E.2d 555 (2006). "The crime of assault with intent to rape is a lesser included offense of rape." Commonwealth v. Kruah, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 341, 347, 712 N.E.2d 1182 (1999). Rape does not require proof of a specific intent to have nonconsensual sexual intercourse; "proof that a defendant intended sexual intercourse by force coupled with proof that the victim did not in fact consent is sufficient to maintain a conviction."6 Commonwealth v. Lopez, 433 Mass. 722, 728, 745 N.E.2d 961 (2001).

We conclude that the Commonwealth adduced sufficient evidence of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Silva v. Garland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 28, 2022
    ...belief that property was abandoned was sufficient to establish a defense that turned on that honest belief); Commonwealth v. Lahens, 100 Mass.App.Ct. 310, 177 N.E.3d 935, 942 (2021) ("Specific intent crimes are commonly identified by the presence of a subjective intent to cause a result tha......
  • Silva v. Garland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 28, 2022
    ... ... Those that do not ... involve homicide, involve other serious offenses: armed ... robbery, e.g., Commonwealth v. Ayoub, 32 N.E.3d 369 ... (Mass.App. Ct. 2015) (table); assault with a dangerous ... weapon, e.g., Commonwealth v. Nick N., 952 ... was sufficient to establish a defense that turned on that ... honest belief); Commonwealth v. Lahens, 177 N.E.3d 935, 942 ... (Mass.App. Ct. 2021) ("Specific intent crimes are ... commonly identified by the presence of a subjective intent ... ...
  • Commonwealth v. Stanley S.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • October 1, 2021
  • Commonwealth v. Osher
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • October 12, 2022
    ... ... Lahens, 100 Mass.App.Ct ... 310, 314 (2021), quoting Commonwealth v ... Martin, 447 Mass. 274, 287 n.9 (2006). Specific intent ... may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Martin, ... 447 Mass. at 287. "The inferences drawn need only be ... 'reasonable and possible.'" ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT