According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a teenager from Framingham allegedly assaulted his girlfriend this past week. The article states that the alleged victim accused the defendant of cheating on her at approximately 4am. After the accusation was made, the defendant reportedly began hitting and kicking the alleged victim, who claimed that she did not recall the number of punches and/or kicks because there were “too many” to count. The couple reportedly went back to bed after the defendant apologized. When they woke up again, the conversation resumed and the defendant allegedly dragged the alleged victim by the hair and spat in her face. The defendant also allegedly put his hands around the alleged victim’s neck and applied “slight pressure.” At some point after this second alleged assault, the alleged victim called the police and made a report. She claims that she was too afraid to call the police immediately. The defendant was charged with two domestic violence offenses: one count of assault and battery on a household or family member and one count of strangulation.
To convict the defendant of assault and battery on a household or family member under G. L. c. 265, § 13M, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant touched the alleged victim, without having any right or excuse for doing so; (2) that the defendant intended to touch the alleged victim; (3) that the touching was either likely to cause bodily harm to the alleged victim, or was done without her consent; and (4) that the defendant and the alleged victim are “household members.” Under the law, people are household members if they are or were married, they have a child in common, and/or they have been in a substantive dating or engagement relationship.
To convict the defendant of strangulation under G. L. c. 265, § 15D, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant applied substantial pressure on the throat or neck of the alleged victim; (2) that he interfered with the alleged victim’s normal breathing and/or circulation without having any right or excuse for doing so; and (3) that he did so intentionally. Continue reading →