Commonwealth v. David C. McCauley.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: April 22, 2026
• Docket: 25-P-0652
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

25-P-652

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

DAVID C. MCCAULEY.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After a jury-waived trial, a Boston Municipal Court judge

convicted the defendant, David C. McCauley, of assault and

battery and assault and battery on a household member. On

appeal, the defendant claims that the Commonwealth did not

present evidence that he assaulted the victim, a woman with whom

he was in a long-term relationship, and that the judge erred in

denying his motion for required findings of not guilty. We

affirm.

Background. We review the evidence presented at trial in

the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v.

Brown, 496 Mass. 287, 299 (2025). On July 14, 2021, the victim

returned home from work to find the defendant waiting for her on the porch. The victim and the defendant lived together and were

in a long-term relationship. They both went inside the house.

They were the only ones present in the home, and once inside,

both the front door and rear door were locked.

The victim entered the kitchen and was sitting down in a

chair when she heard the defendant, who was behind her, say,

"Now I need to kill you." The victim next recalled the

defendant telling her, "I think you need to go to the hospital

now." Between the time she heard the defendant say, "Now I need

to kill you" and his telling her that she needed to go to the

hospital, the victim remembers nothing.

The victim then went to her next-door neighbor's home and

asked the neighbor to take her to the hospital. At the

hospital, the victim's injuries were treated. She sustained

multiple injuries: nine broken ribs, a broken nose, a broken

eye socket, and the loss of two teeth. The injuries were

photographed, and a police detective interviewed the victim.

Within the next few days, the detective accompanied the

victim's sister into the victim's home. At the house, the

detective observed apparent blood markings on the walls and

doors of several rooms in the house, which were photographed and

presented at trial. The detective also observed that the doors

were locked and undamaged.

2 Discussion. The defendant claims that there was "no

evidence . . . that [the defendant] committed assault and

battery on [the victim]," and that as a result there was

insufficient evidence to sustain convictions of assault and

battery and assault and battery on a household member, and that

the judge therefore erred in denying his motion for required

findings of not guilty. We disagree.

In reviewing whether the evidence was sufficient, "we

assess the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact

could have found each element of the crime[s] beyond a

reasonable doubt." Brown, 496 Mass. at 299. Proof of the

essential elements "may be based on reasonable inferences drawn

from the evidence," id., and a conviction can be substantiated

by evidence which is "entirely circumstantial," Commonwealth v.

Whitaker, 460 Mass. 409, 416 (2011).

The evidence supported an inference that the victim and the

defendant were the only two people in the house. The defendant

threatened the victim, who then sustained several injuries.

Although the victim possesses no memory of the assault, the

evidence of her injuries, the blood splattered throughout the

home, and the locked and undamaged doors are sufficient to

support the inference that the defendant assaulted her.

3 The Commonwealth carries the burden of proving each element

of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but it need not

affirmatively prove that no one else could have committed the

crime. See Commonwealth v. Farley, 443 Mass. 740, 746 (2005),

quoting Commonwealth v. Leach, 156 Mass. 99, 101-102 (1892) ("In

order to convict on circumstantial evidence, it is not necessary

to show that it was not in the power of any other person than

the defendant to commit the crime"). Furthermore, our review

under Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979),

occurs "without reference to the credibility of the witnesses or

weight of the evidence," and so we do not consider "the

integrity of [the Commonwealth's] investigation." Commonwealth

v. Doucette, 408 Mass. 454, 457 (1990).

The evidence presented was sufficient to support the

convictions, and we affirm the judge's denial of the defendant's

motion for required findings of not guilty.

Judgments affirmed.

By the Court (Meade, D'Angelo & Tan, JJ. 1),

Clerk

Entered: April 22, 2026.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.