Commonwealth v. Julissa Melendez-Guity.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: October 4, 2023
• Docket: 22-P-0410
• Status: Unpublished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

22-P-410

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

JULISSA MELENDEZ-GUITY.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of assault

and battery on a family or household member. She appeals,

arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her

conviction. We affirm.

Background. The evidence, in brief and viewed in the light

most favorable to the Commonwealth, see Commonwealth v.

Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), was as follows. The

defendant and the victim (her husband) lived together in a

split-level house with their children. The defendant and the

children occupied the upstairs, while the victim occupied the

basement. The victim would go upstairs only "on rare occasions"

to turn off the lights, close the windows, turn the heat down,

and do the laundry. This arrangement had been in place for

three to four years. On the day in question, the victim helped the defendant

rearrange items in her bedroom and the dining room and then

returned to the basement. Several hours later, the defendant

went to the basement and accused the victim of taking her

belongings. She was angry. The victim offered to help look for

the missing items and went to the defendant's bedroom to search

the boxes they had moved earlier. When the victim opened the

first box, however, the defendant stated, "Don't touch my

things." The victim replied, "Let's keep looking," and turned

to another box, but the defendant again stated, "Don't touch my

things."

The victim turned to leave. As he was walking out of the

room, he felt the defendant shove him in the middle of the back

with her forearms. The victim, who weighed 235 pounds, was

thrown into another room across the hallway, where he landed on

the floor. The victim used his hands to cushion the fall and

was not injured. One of the children witnessed the assault.

Discussion. The defendant moved for a required finding of

not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth's case and at the

close of all the evidence. Thus, we first "consider the state

of the evidence at the close of the Commonwealth's case to

determine whether the defendant's motion should have been

granted at that time." Commonwealth v. O'Laughlin, 446 Mass.

188, 198 (2006), quoting Commonwealth v. Sheline, 391 Mass. 279,

2 283 (1984). We then "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." O'Laughlin, supra, quoting Sheline, supra.

"An assault and battery is the intentional and unjustified

use of force upon the person of another, however slight."

Commonwealth v. Colas, 486 Mass. 831, 841 (2021), quoting

Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 306 (1980). The

defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that

she touched the victim intentionally, rather than by accident.

We are not persuaded. Intent may be proved circumstantially "by

inference from all the facts and circumstances developed at the

trial," and the inferences "need only be reasonable and possible

and need not be necessary or inescapable." Commonwealth v.

Casale, 381 Mass. 167, 173 (1980). Here, the Commonwealth

presented evidence that the defendant was angry with the victim

on the night of the assault and pushed him from behind with

enough force to propel him out of the room, across the hallway,

and onto the floor. A reasonable juror could have inferred from

this evidence that the touching was intentional.

There was no deterioration after the presentation of the

defendant's case. Although the defendant testified that she did

not push the victim, deterioration does not occur merely

"because the defendant contradicted the Commonwealth's

3 evidence"; rather, the Commonwealth's evidence must be "shown to

be incredible or conclusively incorrect." O'Laughlin, 446 Mass.

at 203, quoting Kater v. Commonwealth, 421 Mass. 17, 20 (1995).

Because "the jury were free to disbelieve the defendant's

account," the Commonwealth's case did not deteriorate.

Commonwealth v. Walker, 401 Mass. 338, 343 (1987).

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Wolohojian, Shin & Ditkoff, JJ. 1),

Clerk

Entered: October 4, 2023.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.