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-746
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
JOSHUA NEGRON.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of assault
and battery causing serious bodily injury (G. L. c. 265,
§ 13A [b] [i]), and assault and battery on a family member
(G. L. c. 265, § 13M [a]); a judge then found him guilty of the
subsequent offender portion of that indictment (G. L. c. 265,
§ 13M [b]). On appeal from his convictions, the defendant
contends that the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to
prove serious bodily injury and that the judge erred by
admitting body-worn camera footage. We affirm.
Background. The defendant and the victim were intimate
partners. On the night of the assault, they were home together
at the victim's apartment. A verbal argument became physical, and the victim suffered facial injuries including a split and
bleeding lip, a black eye, and fractured bones around her eyes.
The victim took photographs of her injuries and posted them to
Facebook. These images were admitted in evidence at trial. The
injuries were also captured on the responding police officers'
body-worn camera footage, a redacted copy of which was admitted
in evidence over the defendant's objection.
Discussion. 1. Serious bodily injury. At the close of
the Commonwealth's case the defendant moved for a required
finding of not guilty, asserting that the Commonwealth failed to
prove serious bodily injury. He renewed the motion at the close
of all the evidence, and the judge again denied it. We review
to determine "whether the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to satisfy a
rational trier of fact that the essential elements of the crime
have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v.
Vazquez, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 622, 626 (2007).
Under G. L. c. 265, § 13A (c), there are three alternate
ways to prove "serious bodily injury": bodily injury resulting
in (1) "a substantial risk of death," (2) "permanent
disfigurement," or (3) "loss or impairment of a bodily function,
limb or organ." See Commonwealth v. Inoa, 97 Mass. App. Ct.
262, 263 (2020), quoting G. L. c. 265, § 15 (d), a statute
2 containing identical language. The Commonwealth proceeded under
the third theory. Impairment of a bodily function is "when a
part or system of the body (other than an organ or limb) is
significantly impeded in its ability to fulfill its role."
Commonwealth v. Scott, 464 Mass. 355, 359 (2013).
The victim suffered an "orbital blowout fracture," a
memorable term describing the fracture of small bones in her eye
socket. As her treating ophthalmologist explained, this type of
fracture involves multiple bones and "can lead to changes of the
position of the eye and function of the muscles that could lead
to things like double vision or asymmetry and how the eyes
look." Treatment may require later surgical intervention.
When asked by responding medical personnel to rate her pain
on a one-to-ten scale, the victim rated it a ten. When she left
the hospital, her left eye was swollen, and she could not open
it or see through it. She was in pain on the left side of her
face for approximately a week. Her bruising lasted for
approximately three weeks. At the time of trial, she could
still feel a "little void under [her] eye."
Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
this evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
"Loss or impairment of a bodily function need not be permanent
to meet the definition of 'serious bodily injury.'"
3 Commonwealth v. Marinho, 464 Mass. 115, 118 (2013). See
Commonwealth v. Baro, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 218, 219-220 (2008)
(orbital blowout fracture and temporary loss of sight in one eye
is serious bodily injury); Commonwealth v. Jean-Pierre, 65 Mass.
App. Ct. 162, 167 (2005) (broken or fractured jaw is serious
bodily injury). Because the evidence was sufficient to permit
the jury to conclude that the victim's eyesight had been
"significantly impeded in its ability to fulfill its role"
because of broken orbital bones, Scott, 464 Mass. at 359, we
discern no error in the judge's denial of the first motion for a
required finding at the close of the Commonwealth's case.
"We also consider the state of the evidence at the close of
all the evidence, to determine whether the Commonwealth's
position as to proof deteriorated after it closed its case."
Commonwealth v. Alden, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 438, 445 (2018), cert.
denied, 587 U.S. 987 (2019). After the Commonwealth rested, the
defendant presented one witness, the mother of one of the
defendant's children. This witness offered an alternative
explanation for the victim's facial injuries. Having considered
the witness's testimony in full, we conclude that it was not "so
overwhelming that no rational jury could conclude that the
defendant was guilty." Commonwealth v. Ross, 92 Mass. App. Ct.
377, 381 (2017). There was no error.
4 2. Admission of body-worn camera footage. Over the
defendant's objection, the judge admitted audio and video
footage from a responding police officer's body-worn camera. We
will not disturb a judge's determination that such evidence is
relevant and admissible unless the "defendant is able to bear
the heavy burden of demonstrating an abuse of that discretion"
(citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Benson, 419 Mass. 114, 118
(1994).
The defendant maintains that the audio and video footage
was more prejudicial than probative and cumulative of other
admitted evidence. "The relevance threshold for the admission
of evidence is low" (citation omitted), Commonwealth v.
Gerhardt, 477 Mass. 775, 782 (2017), and this evidence met that
threshold. To withhold such evidence, a judge must conclude
that its probative value is "substantially outweighed" by the
risk of "unfair prejudice." Commonwealth v. Martinez, 476 Mass.
186, 190 n.4 (2017), quoting Mass. G. Evid. § 403 (2016).
We agree with the defendant that the body-worn camera
footage was "disturbing" and "emotionally charged," but it was
also relevant. The footage showed the victim's physical and
emotional condition in the immediate aftermath of the
altercation. It put the jury in the shoes of the responding
police officer, allowing the jurors to witness for themselves
5 not only the still images of the victim's face, but also how she
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-746
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
JOSHUA NEGRON.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of assault
and battery causing serious bodily injury (G. L. c. 265,
§ 13A [b] [i]), and assault and battery on a family member
(G. L. c. 265, § 13M [a]); a judge then found him guilty of the
subsequent offender portion of that indictment (G. L. c. 265,
§ 13M [b]). On appeal from his convictions, the defendant
contends that the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to
prove serious bodily injury and that the judge erred by
admitting body-worn camera footage. We affirm.
Background. The defendant and the victim were intimate
partners. On the night of the assault, they were home together
at the victim's apartment. A verbal argument became physical, and the victim suffered facial injuries including a split and
bleeding lip, a black eye, and fractured bones around her eyes.
The victim took photographs of her injuries and posted them to
Facebook. These images were admitted in evidence at trial. The
injuries were also captured on the responding police officers'
body-worn camera footage, a redacted copy of which was admitted
in evidence over the defendant's objection.
Discussion. 1. Serious bodily injury. At the close of
the Commonwealth's case the defendant moved for a required
finding of not guilty, asserting that the Commonwealth failed to
prove serious bodily injury. He renewed the motion at the close
of all the evidence, and the judge again denied it. We review
to determine "whether the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to satisfy a
rational trier of fact that the essential elements of the crime
have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v.
Vazquez, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 622, 626 (2007).
Under G. L. c. 265, § 13A (c), there are three alternate
ways to prove "serious bodily injury": bodily injury resulting
in (1) "a substantial risk of death," (2) "permanent
disfigurement," or (3) "loss or impairment of a bodily function,
limb or organ." See Commonwealth v. Inoa, 97 Mass. App. Ct.
262, 263 (2020), quoting G. L. c. 265, § 15 (d), a statute
2 containing identical language. The Commonwealth proceeded under
the third theory. Impairment of a bodily function is "when a
part or system of the body (other than an organ or limb) is
significantly impeded in its ability to fulfill its role."
Commonwealth v. Scott, 464 Mass. 355, 359 (2013).
The victim suffered an "orbital blowout fracture," a
memorable term describing the fracture of small bones in her eye
socket. As her treating ophthalmologist explained, this type of
fracture involves multiple bones and "can lead to changes of the
position of the eye and function of the muscles that could lead
to things like double vision or asymmetry and how the eyes
look." Treatment may require later surgical intervention.
When asked by responding medical personnel to rate her pain
on a one-to-ten scale, the victim rated it a ten. When she left
the hospital, her left eye was swollen, and she could not open
it or see through it. She was in pain on the left side of her
face for approximately a week. Her bruising lasted for
approximately three weeks. At the time of trial, she could
still feel a "little void under [her] eye."
Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
this evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
"Loss or impairment of a bodily function need not be permanent
to meet the definition of 'serious bodily injury.'"
3 Commonwealth v. Marinho, 464 Mass. 115, 118 (2013). See
Commonwealth v. Baro, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 218, 219-220 (2008)
(orbital blowout fracture and temporary loss of sight in one eye
is serious bodily injury); Commonwealth v. Jean-Pierre, 65 Mass.
App. Ct. 162, 167 (2005) (broken or fractured jaw is serious
bodily injury). Because the evidence was sufficient to permit
the jury to conclude that the victim's eyesight had been
"significantly impeded in its ability to fulfill its role"
because of broken orbital bones, Scott, 464 Mass. at 359, we
discern no error in the judge's denial of the first motion for a
required finding at the close of the Commonwealth's case.
"We also consider the state of the evidence at the close of
all the evidence, to determine whether the Commonwealth's
position as to proof deteriorated after it closed its case."
Commonwealth v. Alden, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 438, 445 (2018), cert.
denied, 587 U.S. 987 (2019). After the Commonwealth rested, the
defendant presented one witness, the mother of one of the
defendant's children. This witness offered an alternative
explanation for the victim's facial injuries. Having considered
the witness's testimony in full, we conclude that it was not "so
overwhelming that no rational jury could conclude that the
defendant was guilty." Commonwealth v. Ross, 92 Mass. App. Ct.
377, 381 (2017). There was no error.
4 2. Admission of body-worn camera footage. Over the
defendant's objection, the judge admitted audio and video
footage from a responding police officer's body-worn camera. We
will not disturb a judge's determination that such evidence is
relevant and admissible unless the "defendant is able to bear
the heavy burden of demonstrating an abuse of that discretion"
(citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Benson, 419 Mass. 114, 118
(1994).
The defendant maintains that the audio and video footage
was more prejudicial than probative and cumulative of other
admitted evidence. "The relevance threshold for the admission
of evidence is low" (citation omitted), Commonwealth v.
Gerhardt, 477 Mass. 775, 782 (2017), and this evidence met that
threshold. To withhold such evidence, a judge must conclude
that its probative value is "substantially outweighed" by the
risk of "unfair prejudice." Commonwealth v. Martinez, 476 Mass.
186, 190 n.4 (2017), quoting Mass. G. Evid. § 403 (2016).
We agree with the defendant that the body-worn camera
footage was "disturbing" and "emotionally charged," but it was
also relevant. The footage showed the victim's physical and
emotional condition in the immediate aftermath of the
altercation. It put the jury in the shoes of the responding
police officer, allowing the jurors to witness for themselves
5 not only the still images of the victim's face, but also how she
moved, how she spoke, how she described getting her injuries,
her condition at the time, and her initial interactions with
emergency medical personnel. This was highly probative
evidence, especially in light of the defense theory that the
victim was lying and that the real cause of her injuries was an
accident.
Any prejudice resulted from the jury's ability to see and
understand the victim's injuries and emotional state -- in other
words, from the "properly probative effect" of the evidence --
and was "not unfair." Commonwealth v. Gilman, 89 Mass. App. Ct.
752, 758 (2016). "That the [footage] may be gruesome or have an
inflammatory effect on the jury does not render [it]
inadmissible so long as [it] possess[es] evidentiary value on a
material matter." Commonwealth v. Olsen, 452 Mass. 284, 294
(2008). Given their substantial probative value, even autopsy
photographs and photographs of murder scenes may properly be
admitted. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Alleyne, 474 Mass. 771,
780-781 (2016) (no abuse of discretion in admitting autopsy
photographs where each photograph "was probative of a point that
the others were not"); Commonwealth v. Keohane, 444 Mass. 563,
573 (2005) (no abuse of discretion in judge's admission of seven
photographs of victim's body). Because the video and audio
6 footage added perspective, dimension, and information to the
still images and was relevant to the victim's state of mind, it
was not cumulative, and its admission was not error.
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Shin, Grant & Hershfang, JJ.1),
Clerk
Entered: October 3, 2025.
1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.