Harassment Crimes

Published on: April 25, 2019

SJC Rules that Posting Threatening Rap Song is Insufficient for Harassment Order

In F.K. v. S.C. [& M.D. v. S.C.], the SJC vacated the civil harassment prevention order against the defendant on the grounds that his posting of a threatening rap song on the internet constituted a single act of harassment, not three or more acts as required for issuance of an order under G.L. c.258E, §3(a).

The background was as follows. “The plaintiffs and the defendant were seniors at the same high school when the defendant created a rap song in which he improvised lyrics pertaining to the plaintiffs. Some of the lyrics referenced violence that the defendant stated that he wanted to inflict on M.D., whose name was mentioned in the song. Other lyrics described acts of sexual violence that the defendant stated he wanted to inflict on an unnamed woman; in context, F.K. understood that the lyrics referred to her. The defendant posted the song on a public Internet website [SoundCloud], and then posted a link to the song on a social media website [Snapchat],” thus “shar[ing] the song with at least six other high school classmates, who were members of the defendant’s Snapchat ‘friend’ network. He did not share the song directly with M.D. or F.K.” “On the same evening that the song was posted to Snapchat, a number of M.D.’s friends … informed him about the existence of the song.” M.D. then listened to the song, as did his father and F.K. “After receiving threats of physical violence from members of the high school hockey team (of which M.D. was a member), the defendant removed the song from the Internet approximately two hours after initially posting it.” Continue reading →

Published on: September 23, 2014

Woman Allegedly Assaults Ex-Boyfriend’s New Girlfriend in Framingham

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Framingham woman is facing charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. The article states that the woman allegedly attacked her ex-boyfriend’s new girlfriend in July.

The alleged victim told police that she was walking to her car near Tedeschi’s on Hollis Street in Framingham when she saw the defendant. The defendant began “coming toward” her and, as the alleged victim got into her car, the defendant reportedly started throwing rocks through the open car window. The defendant eportedly hit the alleged victim with two rocks. The article does not indicate that the alleged victim was injured, or that she had any marks on her, nor does it indicate that her car was damaged in any way. After the purported assault, the alleged victim went to the police station and made a report. The defendant was subsequently summonsed to court and arraigned. In addition to the above referenced offense, the defendant was also charged with violation of a harassment order, as the alleged victim had a harassment order in place against the defendant. At the arraignment, the defendant’s attorney indicated that the defendant’s ex-boyfriend had told her that he would “make her life miserable,” potentially providing the defendant with an argument that the ex and his new girlfriend have a motive to fabricate the allegations against her.

For a jury to convict the defendant of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon under G. L. c. 265, § 15A, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant touched the alleged victim, however slightly, without having any right or excuse for doing so; (2) that the defendant intended to touch the alleged victim; and (3) that the touching was done with a dangerous weapon. For a jury to convict the defendant of violation of a harassment order under G. L. c. 258E, § 9, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the court had issued a harassment order ordering the defendant to refrain from abusing or harassing, refrain from contacting, or stay away from the alleged victim, her home, and/or her workplace; (2) that the order was in effect on the date when the violation allegedly occurred; (3) that the defendant knew the pertinent terms of the order and that it was in effect; and (4) that the defendant violated the order by abusing or harassing, contacting, or failing to stay away from the alleged victim, her home, and/or her workplace. Continue reading →

Published on: January 29, 2013

Chelsea Man Accused of Extortion of Framingham Man

By Daniel Cappetta

A 52 year old Chelsea man has been ordered held on $25,000 bail for charges of trying to extort $150,000 from a Framingham man, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. On Tuesday, January 8th, the defendant pleaded not guilty to charges of extortion, threatening to commit a crime, and making harassing phone calls.

The defendant reportedly told the alleged victim that the alleged victim owed him money due to a land deal involving the alleged victim’s father in Brazil. The defendant and several of his friends reportedly began calling the alleged victim in 2011, demanding money. The defendant also allegedly created a website, claiming that the alleged victim was a criminal and was wanted for murder in Brazil.

The alleged victim reportedly paid the defendant $3,000 in January 2012 out of fear. The defendant reportedly began calling the alleged victim again, demanding $150,000. The defendant reportedly told the alleged victim that he had contacts in Brazil who would kill the alleged victim’s family and also that he would kill the alleged victim and his family. If the defendant posts bail, he has been ordered to surrender his passport and not to contact the alleged victim and/or his family.

Under Massachusetts law, Extortion is defined as the malicious threat to accuse another of a crime; or any person of authority unlawfully using his powers, with intent to extort money or any pecuniary advantage, or with intent to compel any person to do any act against his will. To prevail on the extortion charges, prosecutors will have to prove that the defendant engaged in written, verbal, or printed communication; that the communication constituted a threat; that the threatening communication was undertaken maliciously; that the threat was to accuse another person of a crime or offense, or to do injury to the person or property of another; and that the threat was undertaken with the intent to extort money or other pecuniary advantage, or to compel another to do an act against his or her will. The prosecutors in this case have many elements to prove to prevail on their charge of extortion against the defendant.

If the defendant is convicted of these charges, he will be facing up to fifteen years in prison or up to two and a half years in a house of correction, or a fine of up to five thousand dollars, or both.

To prove that the defendant made threats against the alleged victim, prosecutors will have to prove that he had the intention and ability to commit a crime, which would justify the alleged victim’s fear. If the defendant is convicted of threatening to commit a crime, he is facing fines and possible jail time.

Finally, to prevail on the harassment charges, prosecutors will have to prove that the defendant engaged in a pattern, or committed a series of harassing acts over time. If convicted of harassment, the defendant is facing up to two and a half years of incarceration, as well as fines.

Anyone facing such serious charges needs a serious and committed Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer.

Continue reading →