Commonwealth v. Samantha J. Engelking.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: April 1, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-1103
• Status: Unpublished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-1103

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

SAMANTHA J. ENGELKING.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, Samantha J. Engelking, was charged in the

Boston Municipal Court (BMC) with assault and battery on March

29, 2023. She admitted to sufficient facts, and the case was

continued without a finding for nine months with probationary

conditions. In May 2024, the probation department issued a

notice alleging that the defendant had violated the terms of her

probation by committing new crimes. Following an evidentiary

probation violation hearing, a BMC judge found that the

defendant had violated the conditions of the continuance without

a finding, revoked the defendant's probation, and imposed a

sentence of two and a half years in the house of correction.

The defendant appealed. We agree with the defendant's claim, as well as the Commonwealth's concession, that the judge applied an

incorrect standard and thus the probation violation finding and

order revoking probation must be vacated.

Background. On February 23, 2024, the defendant admitted

to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty on an assault

and battery charge in the BMC. A judge continued her case

without a finding with probationary conditions for nine months.

Three days later, on February 26, 2024, the defendant was

arrested and charged in Falmouth District Court for assault and

battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery

on a person sixty years of age or older.

Based on this new charge, the BMC probation department

issued a notice of violation. A different BMC judge held a

hearing on the alleged violation and, over the objection of

defense counsel, allowed the probation officer to introduce a

police report describing the new alleged offenses.

The author of the report, Officer James O'Doherty of the

Bourne police department, then testified. On February 26, 2024,

at 5:31 A.M., he and his partner were dispatched to a McDonald's

where they met the victim, F.D. F.D. explained that he was

homeless and living in his truck at the Bourne Park and Ride.

He said that he invited a woman known to him as "Samantha" into

his truck to stay warm. F.D. was asleep in the driver's seat

when Samantha began punching the back of his head. She also

2 kicked his right shoulder and his back. As he opened the truck

door to leave, he was kicked out of the truck, landing on his

back. He had superficial lacerations on his back. Police

officers went to F.D.'s truck where they found the defendant in

the passenger seat. She denied any assault.

Following closing arguments, the judge credited the

testimony of Officer O'Doherty, and then ruled as follows: "I

find there's probable cause for the new offense. I find the new

offense to be a violation of probation." He then immediately

imposed the maximum two-and-a-half-year sentence. Defense

counsel objected to the imposition of sentence without an

opportunity to make a disposition argument. The judge told her

to proceed.

Defense counsel explained that the defendant had a

"significant, horrific history of sexual abuse by older men."

Counsel described the defendant's recent mental health treatment

and a social worker's effort to place her in a structured sober

home, as she also had a substance use issue. Counsel explained

that the defendant had been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress

disorder and depression and had been under great stress at the

time of the incident giving rise to the alleged violation

because her father had just been moved to hospice with brain

cancer. Counsel asked the judge to reprobate the defendant with

3 the new condition that she work with the social worker to get

into a structured sober home.

Without hearing from Probation, the Commonwealth, or any

description of the circumstances of the underlying offense, the

judge responded: "Given that, I revoke my earlier imposition of

the sentence. And now in light of what you just told me, I

reimpose it, two-and-a-half years house of correction."

Discussion. As noted above, the judge found a probation

violation based on the probable cause standard. This was error.

The standard of proof applicable at a probation violation

hearing is preponderance of the evidence. See Commonwealth v.

King, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 737, 740 (2008); Rule 6(c) of the

District/Municipal Court Rules for Probation Violation

Proceedings (2015). "Probable cause is a lower standard than

proof by a preponderance of the evidence [quotation omitted]."

Commonwealth v. Tyson, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 739, 741 (2024).

The Commonwealth rightly concedes that the judge's

application of the probable cause standard was reversible error.

4 Accordingly, we vacate the probation violation finding, as well

as the order revoking probation based on that violation.1,2

Conclusion. The judge's finding of a probation violation

is vacated; the order revoking probation and imposing sentence

is vacated. Any further proceedings on the probation violation

notice shall be held before a different judge.

So ordered.

By the Court (Massing, Neyman & Wood, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: April 1, 2025.

1 The defendant also argues that the judge committed reversible error because he relied on hearsay, over a defense objection, without making any findings as to why it was reliable and because he permitted Officer O'Doherty to opine, again over a defense objection, that F.D.'s scrapes on his back and shoulder indicated "[t]hat he was assaulted." Because we vacate the probation revocation finding, as well the order revoking probation and imposing sentence, we need not reach these issues.

2 The defendant asks that we remand to a different judge. Under the particular facts and on the record before us in this case, we agree that, in the event there are further proceedings, such an order is proper. See Commonwealth v. Henriquez, 440 Mass. 1015, 1016 (2003) (discussing when "reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice" [quotation omitted]).

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.