Commonwealth v. Muhammad A. Noor.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: January 24, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-0684
• Status: Unpublished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

24-P-684

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

MUHAMMAD A. NOOR.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

On April 10, 2023, the defendant, Muhammad A. Noor, was

convicted in District Court, after a jury-waived trial, of

assault and battery on a family or household member, G. L.

c. 265, § 13M (a), and violating an abuse prevention order,

G. L. c. 209A, § 7 (docket no. 2251CR001059). On August 28,

2023, the defendant was convicted, after a jury-waived trial, of

a separate count of violating an abuse prevention order (docket

no. 2251CR001291). Concluding that the operative abuse

prevention order did not prohibit the defendant from contacting

the victim, we reverse the August 2023 judgment of conviction,

set aside the finding of guilt, and order that judgment enter for the defendant. We affirm the April 2023 judgments of

conviction.

"When reviewing the denial of a motion for a required

finding of not guilty, 'we consider the evidence introduced at

trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and

determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'"

Commonwealth v. Quinones, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 156, 162 (2019),

quoting Commonwealth v. Faherty, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 133

(2018). "A finding of a violation of G. L. c. 209A, § 7,

requires the Commonwealth to 'prove that (1) a valid G. L.

c. 209A order was issued by a judge, (2) the order was in effect

on the date of the alleged violation, (3) the defendant had

knowledge of the order, and (4) the defendant violated the

order.'" Commonwealth v. Carino, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 578, 580

(2024), quoting Commonwealth v. Telcinord, 94 Mass. App. Ct.

232, 235 (2018).

Here, the written abuse prevention order that was served on

the defendant contains no prohibition on the defendant's

contacting the victim, which was the only allegation urged by

the Commonwealth at trial. The Commonwealth concedes that the

abuse prevention order judge's earlier oral instruction to the

defendant not to contact the victim does not control over the

2 subsequent written order served on the defendant that did not

prohibit such contact. "Having fulfilled our duty of

independently determining whether there was error, we agree with

the Commonwealth's concession." Commonwealth v. Waterman, 98

Mass. App. Ct. 651, 654 (2020). The last order provided to the

defendant was operative, and thus the defendant's attempts to

contact the victim did not violate the order.

As the defendant raises no arguments concerning the April

2023 convictions, we have no cause to disturb them. See

Commonwealth v. Smith, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 204, 205 n.1 (2003).

Accordingly, the April 2023 judgments on docket no. 2251CR001059

are affirmed. The August 2023 judgment on docket

no. 2251CR001291 is reversed, the finding is set aside, and

judgment shall enter for the defendant.

So ordered.

By the Court (Ditkoff, Grant & Toone, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: January 24, 2025.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.