Commonwealth v. Smith
| Decision Date | 17 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 20-P-999 |
| Citation | 179 N.E.3d 1134 (Table) |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Deontay SMITH. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
The defendant, Deontay Smith, was convicted of assault and battery on a family or household member pursuant to G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a ).2 On appeal, the defendant contends that the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.
Background. We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979). The defendant and his ex-girlfriend had a son who was seven years old at the time of trial. On the day in question, the defendant texted her and asked to see their son. She told the defendant he could watch their son at her apartment while she worked her overnight shift. While there, he twice entered the bathroom while she was using it, and on the second occasion would not leave when asked. When asked to leave the second time, the defendant said,
She then attempted to get the defendant to leave the apartment, but when she opened the front door, he shut it. He would not respond to her requests that he leave. Then, when she opened the door to leave, her son yelled out, "Mommy, Daddy has a knife." As she turned around, the defendant knocked her to the floor with his arm. He put a knife to her neck, asked her if she wanted to die, and said, "You fucking bitch, I'm going to kill you." He nicked her neck with the knife, put the knife inside her mouth and moved it around and said, The defendant then left, but when she shut her door behind him, he kicked it in, breaking it. Police located the defendant shortly thereafter. He initially fled from police, but he was ultimately arrested.
Discussion. We review claims of insufficient evidence to determine "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt" (emphasis omitted). Commonwealth v. Rogers, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 781, 783 (2019), quoting Latimore, 378 Mass. at 677. A conviction may rest upon circumstantial evidence, and the inferences drawn therefrom "need only be reasonable and possible and need not be necessary or inescapable" (citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Fernandes, 478 Mass. 725, 739 (2018).
As is applicable here, to convict a defendant of assault and battery on a family or household member, the Commonwealth must prove that (1) the defendant intentionally touched the victim, (2) the touching was likely to cause bodily harm or was offensive, and (3) the defendant and victim were family or household members at the time of the offense. See G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a ). See also Commonwealth v. Dustin, 476 Mass. 1003, 1004 (2016) ; Commonwealth v. Eberhart, 461 Mass. 809, 818 (2012) ; Commonwealth v. Burke, 390 Mass. 480, 482-484 (1983). The Commonwealth must show that the defendant intended to touch the victim; that is, that the touching was not mistaken or accidental. See Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 556, 565 (2006).
The defendant contends that the Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to prove that he intended to hit his ex-girlfriend. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the defendant intended to strike her with his arm. First, the defendant was engaged in an increasingly hostile interaction, beginning with his refusal to leave the bathroom. He then repeatedly shut the front door when she attempted to open it so she could leave. When at last she started to go, she heard her son say that the defendant had a knife, and it was at this point, when she turned around, that the defendant knocked her to the ground. Once she was on the ground, the defendant said, "You fucking bitch, I'm going to kill you." After he left, the defendant kicked in the front door. Regardless of whether the jury credited the testimony regarding possession of a knife, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the defendant's conduct was not accidental or...
To continue reading
Request your trial