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
24-P-704
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
JOHN ECKER.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant, John Ecker, appeals from an order of a
Superior Court judge revoking his probation. The defendant
argues that at his probation revocation hearing, the judge
admitted e-mail messages that were not properly authenticated,
and the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he
violated his probation. We affirm.
Background. In July 2014, a jury convicted the defendant
of two counts of criminal harassment, of two different female
victims, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43A (a), as then in
effect1; stalking, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43 (a), as
1The statute was amended in 2024. All references to § 43A are to the version effective May 3, 2010. then in effect2; seven counts of violating a harassment
prevention order, in violation of G. L. c. 258E, § 9;
intimidating a witness, in violation of G. L. c. 268, § 13B, as
then in effect3; and attempt to commit a crime (violation of a
harassment prevention order), in violation of G. L. c. 274, § 6.
In addition to terms of incarceration on other convictions, the
defendant was sentenced on the stalking conviction to fifteen
years' probation, beginning on September 2, 2014, on conditions
including that he not commit any new offenses. On appeal, this
court affirmed the convictions.4 Commonwealth v. Ecker, 92 Mass.
App. Ct. 216, 223 (2017).
On September 22, 2023, a complaint issued in the District
Court alleging that the defendant had engaged in criminal
harassment and witness intimidation of a third woman, Sophia.5
After notice to the defendant, on October 27, 2023, a probation
revocation hearing was held in the Superior Court, at which the
defendant's probation officer and Sophia testified as follows.
2 The statute was amended in 2014.
3 The statute was amended in 2018.
4 On appeal, the defendant did not challenge his convictions of intimidation of a witness and seven counts of violating a harassment prevention order. See Ecker, 92 Mass. App. Ct. at 217 n.1.
5 A pseudonym.
2 In July 2022, the defendant applied in person for
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from
the Department of Transitional Assistance. Sophia, who was a
SNAP case worker, assisted him. The next day, the defendant
telephoned Sophia's workplace and left her a voicemail message
that "concerned" her.
About one year later, the defendant sent two handwritten
letters to Sophia at her workplace. Sophia applied for a
harassment prevention order, which was not issued. Shortly
thereafter, on September 1, 2023, Sophia testified by
videoconference at a probation revocation hearing at which it
was alleged that the defendant's conduct described in the
application for the harassment prevention order constituted a
probation violation. The judge did not find the defendant in
violation of probation.
Between September 12 and September 18, 2023, Sophia
received six e-mail messages from "eckerjohn7@outlook.com,"
which was the e-mail address the defendant used to communicate
with his probation officer. Most of these e-mail messages
contained the typewritten signature "John Ecker." The content
of the e-mail messages included purportedly romantic overtures
toward Sophia, such as, "Will you marry me?" The e-mail
messages made Sophia feel "[a]ppalled, concerned, scared, [and]
confused." Attached to one of the e-mail messages was a
3 document captioned as the will of testator "John Leonard Ecker,
Jr.," which named Sophia as the testator's wife. Another e-mail
message read, "I am sending you links to join my YouTube Family
Premium, Microsoft 365 Family subscription, and links to some
videos I created at my studio on YouTube," and contained a link
to a YouTube video recording depicting the defendant. A few
minutes after receiving that e-mail message, Sophia received two
e-mail messages from those digital platforms, one originating
from a subscriber named "John" and the other from "John Ecker,"
inviting her to join his family subscriptions. Yet another
e-mail message stated, "[D]o we need to send a search and rescue
team into [Sophia's home address]?" Sophia had never given the
defendant her home address.
Sophia never replied to any of the e-mail messages; she
turned them over to the police. A District Court judge issued a
harassment prevention order and ordered the defendant to stay
away from and not contact Sophia.
At the probation revocation hearing in the Superior Court,
the defendant objected, on grounds including authentication, to
the admission of copies of the e-mail messages. Overruling
those objections, the judge found that the e-mail messages sent
to Sophia and an e-mail message sent to the defendant's
probation officer were "substantially reliable" as well as
"consistent internally, and . . . consistent with each other."
4 The judge concluded that the defendant had violated his
probation by engaging in criminal harassment of Sophia, in
violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43A; the judge did not find a
violation based on witness intimidation. The defendant moved to
reconsider the finding of probation violation, arguing that the
contents of the e-mail messages were speech protected by the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge
denied that motion. The judge revoked the defendant's probation
and imposed a sentence. The defendant appeals.6
Discussion. "At a probation violation hearing, the
Commonwealth bears the burden of proving a violation of a
condition of probation by a preponderance of the evidence"
(citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Jarrett, 491 Mass. 437, 445
(2023). The judge's decision to revoke probation and underlying
evidentiary decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
See Commonwealth v. Rainey, 491 Mass. 632, 648 (2023); Jarrett,
supra.
1. Authentication. The defendant argues that the judge
abused his discretion in admitting the e-mail messages in
evidence because they were not properly authenticated. We are
not persuaded.
6 The judge also denied in part the defendant's motion for credit for time served. The defendant does not make a separate argument as to that denial on appeal.
5 "Where evidence is not authentic, it is irrelevant, and
thus, it cannot be a reliable basis for revoking probation."
Commonwealth v. Sargent, 98 Mass. App. Ct. 27, 30 (2020). "In
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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
24-P-704
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
JOHN ECKER.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The defendant, John Ecker, appeals from an order of a
Superior Court judge revoking his probation. The defendant
argues that at his probation revocation hearing, the judge
admitted e-mail messages that were not properly authenticated,
and the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he
violated his probation. We affirm.
Background. In July 2014, a jury convicted the defendant
of two counts of criminal harassment, of two different female
victims, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43A (a), as then in
effect1; stalking, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43 (a), as
1The statute was amended in 2024. All references to § 43A are to the version effective May 3, 2010. then in effect2; seven counts of violating a harassment
prevention order, in violation of G. L. c. 258E, § 9;
intimidating a witness, in violation of G. L. c. 268, § 13B, as
then in effect3; and attempt to commit a crime (violation of a
harassment prevention order), in violation of G. L. c. 274, § 6.
In addition to terms of incarceration on other convictions, the
defendant was sentenced on the stalking conviction to fifteen
years' probation, beginning on September 2, 2014, on conditions
including that he not commit any new offenses. On appeal, this
court affirmed the convictions.4 Commonwealth v. Ecker, 92 Mass.
App. Ct. 216, 223 (2017).
On September 22, 2023, a complaint issued in the District
Court alleging that the defendant had engaged in criminal
harassment and witness intimidation of a third woman, Sophia.5
After notice to the defendant, on October 27, 2023, a probation
revocation hearing was held in the Superior Court, at which the
defendant's probation officer and Sophia testified as follows.
2 The statute was amended in 2014.
3 The statute was amended in 2018.
4 On appeal, the defendant did not challenge his convictions of intimidation of a witness and seven counts of violating a harassment prevention order. See Ecker, 92 Mass. App. Ct. at 217 n.1.
5 A pseudonym.
2 In July 2022, the defendant applied in person for
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from
the Department of Transitional Assistance. Sophia, who was a
SNAP case worker, assisted him. The next day, the defendant
telephoned Sophia's workplace and left her a voicemail message
that "concerned" her.
About one year later, the defendant sent two handwritten
letters to Sophia at her workplace. Sophia applied for a
harassment prevention order, which was not issued. Shortly
thereafter, on September 1, 2023, Sophia testified by
videoconference at a probation revocation hearing at which it
was alleged that the defendant's conduct described in the
application for the harassment prevention order constituted a
probation violation. The judge did not find the defendant in
violation of probation.
Between September 12 and September 18, 2023, Sophia
received six e-mail messages from "eckerjohn7@outlook.com,"
which was the e-mail address the defendant used to communicate
with his probation officer. Most of these e-mail messages
contained the typewritten signature "John Ecker." The content
of the e-mail messages included purportedly romantic overtures
toward Sophia, such as, "Will you marry me?" The e-mail
messages made Sophia feel "[a]ppalled, concerned, scared, [and]
confused." Attached to one of the e-mail messages was a
3 document captioned as the will of testator "John Leonard Ecker,
Jr.," which named Sophia as the testator's wife. Another e-mail
message read, "I am sending you links to join my YouTube Family
Premium, Microsoft 365 Family subscription, and links to some
videos I created at my studio on YouTube," and contained a link
to a YouTube video recording depicting the defendant. A few
minutes after receiving that e-mail message, Sophia received two
e-mail messages from those digital platforms, one originating
from a subscriber named "John" and the other from "John Ecker,"
inviting her to join his family subscriptions. Yet another
e-mail message stated, "[D]o we need to send a search and rescue
team into [Sophia's home address]?" Sophia had never given the
defendant her home address.
Sophia never replied to any of the e-mail messages; she
turned them over to the police. A District Court judge issued a
harassment prevention order and ordered the defendant to stay
away from and not contact Sophia.
At the probation revocation hearing in the Superior Court,
the defendant objected, on grounds including authentication, to
the admission of copies of the e-mail messages. Overruling
those objections, the judge found that the e-mail messages sent
to Sophia and an e-mail message sent to the defendant's
probation officer were "substantially reliable" as well as
"consistent internally, and . . . consistent with each other."
4 The judge concluded that the defendant had violated his
probation by engaging in criminal harassment of Sophia, in
violation of G. L. c. 265, § 43A; the judge did not find a
violation based on witness intimidation. The defendant moved to
reconsider the finding of probation violation, arguing that the
contents of the e-mail messages were speech protected by the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge
denied that motion. The judge revoked the defendant's probation
and imposed a sentence. The defendant appeals.6
Discussion. "At a probation violation hearing, the
Commonwealth bears the burden of proving a violation of a
condition of probation by a preponderance of the evidence"
(citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Jarrett, 491 Mass. 437, 445
(2023). The judge's decision to revoke probation and underlying
evidentiary decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
See Commonwealth v. Rainey, 491 Mass. 632, 648 (2023); Jarrett,
supra.
1. Authentication. The defendant argues that the judge
abused his discretion in admitting the e-mail messages in
evidence because they were not properly authenticated. We are
not persuaded.
6 The judge also denied in part the defendant's motion for credit for time served. The defendant does not make a separate argument as to that denial on appeal.
5 "Where evidence is not authentic, it is irrelevant, and
thus, it cannot be a reliable basis for revoking probation."
Commonwealth v. Sargent, 98 Mass. App. Ct. 27, 30 (2020). "In
the case of a digital communication that is relevant only if
authored by the defendant, a judge is required to determine
whether there is sufficient evidence to persuade a reasonable
trier of fact that it is more likely than not that the defendant
was the author." Commonwealth v. Meola, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 303,
308 (2019). Formal procedures for authenticating evidence are
not required in the probation revocation context because these
proceedings "must be flexible in nature" and "all reliable
evidence should be considered." Sargent, supra, quoting
Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 114 (1990).
Here, there was ample basis for the judge to conclude that
the e-mail messages were authored or sent by the defendant.
First, the e-mail messages bore the defendant's name as the
sender. Although "[e]vidence that the defendant's name is
written as the author of an e-mail . . . is not sufficient alone
to authenticate the electronic communication as having been
authored or sent by the defendant," such evidence may be a
confirming circumstance. Commonwealth v. Purdy, 459 Mass. 442,
450 (2011). Second, the e-mail address from which the e-mail
messages to Sophia originated was the same one that the
defendant used to communicate with his probation officer.
6 Third, the e-mail messages were authenticated by evidence that
one of them contained a link to a YouTube video recording
depicting the defendant. See Purdy, 459 Mass. at 451 (e-mail
message authenticated by evidence including attached photograph
of defendant); Meola, 95 Mass. App. Ct. at 314 (Facebook message
authenticated by evidence including attached videotape depicting
defendant). Finally, the e-mail messages were sent to Sophia
about two weeks after she testified against the defendant at the
September 2023 probation revocation hearing, and thus the timing
of the e-mail messages was also a confirming circumstance. See
Commonwealth v. Welch, 487 Mass. 425, 441-443 (2021) (text
messages authenticated where contents contained private details
of defendant's and victim's lives, including defendant recently
being fired and arrested). Cf. Commonwealth v. Middleton, 100
Mass. App. Ct. 756, 763-764 (2022) (timing of e-mail messages
sent shortly after G. L. c. 209A order made permanent supported
inference that defendant intended to intimidate or harass
witnesses).
Because the judge had ample basis to conclude that the
e-mail messages were authenticated as originating from the
defendant, the statements within them were "presumptively
reliable" as nonhearsay statements of an opposing party, and
therefore admissible at the probation revocation hearing.
7 Durling, 407 Mass. at 118. See Mass. G. Evid. § 801(d)(2)(A)
(2025).
2. Sufficiency of the evidence. The defendant argues that
the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he
criminally harassed Sophia. He contends that the Commonwealth
did not prove the defendant committed at least three separate
acts that "seriously alarm[ed]" Sophia and "would cause a
reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress."
G. L. c. 265, § 43A. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 470 Mass.
300, 307 (2014). The argument is unavailing.
The judge heard evidence that in September 2023 the
defendant sent six e-mail messages to Sophia and instigated the
two contacts to her from digital platforms; those were in
addition to his July 2022 voicemail message and two letters in
the summer of 2023. That evidence sufficed to prove "a knowing
pattern of conduct or series of acts" for criminal harassment.
G. L. c. 265, § 43A. The judge credited Sophia's testimony that
the e-mail messages made her feel "threatened," "afraid that
[the defendant] might hurt [her]," "very scared[,] anxious," and
"very concerned for [her] safety," and that the defendant's
persistent, unwanted romantic overtures made her feel
"[a]ppalled, concerned, scared, [and] confused." See
Commonwealth v. O'Neil, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 284, 285-286, 294
(2006) (defendant's multiple telephone calls and letters
8 containing "obsessive tone and fabricated familiarity with the
victim" reasonably caused alarm and severe emotional distress to
victim, who had no relationship with defendant beyond having
attended same high school). Cf. A.S.R. v. A.K.A., 92 Mass. App.
Ct. 270, 271, 276-277, 280 (2017) (tone and persistence of
numerous e-mail messages, text messages, and voice messages to
former romantic partner "reasonably can be described as criminal
harassment").
The judge's finding that the defendant violated his
probation was supported. See Jarrett, 491 Mass. at 445. Cf.
Middleton, 100 Mass. App. Ct. at 763-764 (testimony supported
witness intimidation conviction where witnesses were "seriously
alarmed or annoyed" by five e-mail messages).
3. First Amendment. In the Superior Court, the defendant
in his motion to reconsider argued unsuccessfully that his
statements in the e-mail messages were speech protected by the
First Amendment because they did not contain "threats." In his
brief on appeal, the defendant does not raise that argument,
even though he filed his brief after the United States Supreme
Court considered a similar issue in Counterman v. Colorado, 600
U.S. 66, 75 (2023).7 In his reply brief, the defendant attempts
7 The defendant's motion to reconsider did not cite Counterman, 600 U.S. at 75, which had been decided more than four months before.
9 to raise his First Amendment argument, relying on Counterman,
id. at 69, 75, and Commonwealth v. Cruz, 495 Mass. 110, 113-114
(2024) (issued after defendant filed his primary brief). This
argument is waived. See Mass. R. A. P. 16 (c), as appearing in
481 Mass. 1628 (2019) ("No new issues shall be raised in the
reply brief"); Commonwealth v. Hampton, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 27, 33
n.8 (2005) ("arguments raised for the first time in a reply
brief are waived"). If we did consider it, we would conclude
that based on the evidence that Sophia had previously sought a
harassment prevention order and testified at the prior probation
revocation hearing, the judge could find by a preponderance of
the evidence that when the defendant sent the e-mail messages to
Sophia, he "was aware that [she] could regard his statement[s]
10 as threatening violence and delivered [them] anyway." Cruz,
supra at 114.
Orders finding probation violation, revoking probation, and imposing sentence affirmed.
Order denying motion for reconsideration of finding of probation violation affirmed.
By the Court (Hand, Grant & Wood, JJ.8),
Clerk
Entered: June 26, 2025.
8 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.