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
25-P-1034
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
SKYE T. BOHUN.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
On December 4, 2024, following a violation of probation
hearing, a District Court judge found that the defendant
violated the conditions of his probation by violating an abuse
prevention order on October 24, 2024. See G. L. c. 209A, § 7.
The judge revoked the defendant's probation and imposed a two
and one-half year committed sentence. 1 The defendant appeals,
1On June 21, 2022, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of strangulation or suffocation in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15D (b) and received a suspended sentence with three years of probation with conditions. In the same case, the defendant also pleaded guilty to two counts of assault and battery on a family or household member in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a), and one count of threatening to commit a crime in violation of G. L. c. 275, § 2. He received two one- year committed sentences served concurrently with a sentence on another case for the two counts of assault and battery on a arguing that the judge erroneously (1) admitted and relied on
six screenshots of text messages that the victim purportedly
received from the defendant, and (2) did not allow the defendant
to cross-examine the responding police officer about a report of
a prior incident involving the parties. We affirm.
Background. The victim of the abuse prevention order
violation is the mother of the defendant's child. 2 At the
violation of probation hearing, the victim testified that, on
October 23, 2024, she received a series of threatening text
messages from the defendant. The text messages entered in
evidence contained the defendant's demands to see his child
immediately, as it was his day to visit with the child, 3 threats
to kill the victim, and a photo of a hallway that the victim
identified as the hallway of her apartment building. The
victim's mother, who was with the victim at the time of the
incident, testified that someone pounded on the door to the
victim's apartment three times around the time the victim
family or household member, and a six-month sentence for the count of threatening to commit a crime, deemed served.
2 The abuse prevention order requires, inter alia, that the defendant stay away from the victim's residence. The defendant is permitted to contact the victim to arrange child exchanges between the victim and the defendant for his parenting time.
3 The defendant has parenting time with the child on Wednesdays and alternating weekends. The incident occurred on a Wednesday.
2 received the text messages. The victim and her mother called
911 after they heard someone pounding on the door. The police
responded and investigated the report and found the defendant
0.2 miles away from the victim's residence approximately one
hour after they received the 911 call. When the police spoke to
the defendant, the defendant stated that he had been attempting
to contact the victim to arrange a child exchange because it was
his day for parenting time. Shortly thereafter, the police
placed him under arrest.
Discussion. "A determination whether a violation of
probation has occurred lies within the discretion of the hearing
judge." Commonwealth v. Bukin, 467 Mass. 516, 519-520 (2014).
"The Commonwealth must prove a violation of probation by a
preponderance of the evidence." Id. at 520. We also review a
judge's evidentiary decisions at a probation violation hearing
for abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Rainey, 491 Mass.
632, 648 (2023).
1. The text message screenshots. We review claims of
error not preserved at a probation final surrender hearing for
whether any error created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of
justice. See Commonwealth v. Pickering, 479 Mass. 589, 590
(2018).
At the violation of probation hearing, the Commonwealth
entered in evidence six screenshots of text messages that the
3 defendant allegedly sent to the victim's telephone. On appeal,
the defendant argues the screenshots should not have been
admitted because he was not given notice that they would be
entered in evidence prior to the hearing 4 and because the
screenshots were unreliable hearsay statements. Neither claim
is availing.
We begin by noting that on the day of the hearing, the
defendant did not argue that he could not go forward with the
hearing due to receiving the text messages that day. Nor did he
seek a continuance. In fact, the judge asked defense counsel
whether she objected to the admission of the screenshots, and
she responded, "No objection." Defense counsel then cross-
examined the victim and her mother about the content of the text
messages, challenged the victim's mother's basis of knowledge
that the defendant sent some messages from an unfamiliar number,
and questioned the responding officer about whether the
screenshots "could have been taken at any moment in time." We
therefore cannot say that the admission of the screenshots
without prior notice, if error, created a substantial risk of a
miscarriage of justice. See Pickering, 479 Mass. at 590.
4 We note that the Commonwealth disputes the defendant's claim that he did not receive notice of the screenshots prior to the hearing. Indeed, during an exchange regarding the admission of the text messages, the probation officer stated that she had "provided [defense counsel] all of the exhibits that [she] had previously received from the police department."
4 Because the screenshots were of text messages written by
the defendant, the screenshots were not hearsay. 5 See Mass. G.
Evid. § 801(d)(2) (2026) (party opponent statements not
hearsay). To the extent that the defendant challenges the
authenticity of the text messages, the judge had sufficient
evidence to find that the defendant sent the text messages to
the victim. See Commonwealth v. Welch, 487 Mass. 425, 440
(2021), quoting Mass. G. Evid. § 901(a) (2021) ("To satisfy the
requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of
evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it
is"). Specifically, the victim testified that she received most
of the text messages from a telephone number she used to
communicate with the defendant before and after she called the
police, and that she heard knocking on her apartment door around
the time she received the picture of an apartment hallway. 6 Most
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
25-P-1034
COMMONWEALTH
vs.
SKYE T. BOHUN.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
On December 4, 2024, following a violation of probation
hearing, a District Court judge found that the defendant
violated the conditions of his probation by violating an abuse
prevention order on October 24, 2024. See G. L. c. 209A, § 7.
The judge revoked the defendant's probation and imposed a two
and one-half year committed sentence. 1 The defendant appeals,
1On June 21, 2022, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of strangulation or suffocation in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15D (b) and received a suspended sentence with three years of probation with conditions. In the same case, the defendant also pleaded guilty to two counts of assault and battery on a family or household member in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a), and one count of threatening to commit a crime in violation of G. L. c. 275, § 2. He received two one- year committed sentences served concurrently with a sentence on another case for the two counts of assault and battery on a arguing that the judge erroneously (1) admitted and relied on
six screenshots of text messages that the victim purportedly
received from the defendant, and (2) did not allow the defendant
to cross-examine the responding police officer about a report of
a prior incident involving the parties. We affirm.
Background. The victim of the abuse prevention order
violation is the mother of the defendant's child. 2 At the
violation of probation hearing, the victim testified that, on
October 23, 2024, she received a series of threatening text
messages from the defendant. The text messages entered in
evidence contained the defendant's demands to see his child
immediately, as it was his day to visit with the child, 3 threats
to kill the victim, and a photo of a hallway that the victim
identified as the hallway of her apartment building. The
victim's mother, who was with the victim at the time of the
incident, testified that someone pounded on the door to the
victim's apartment three times around the time the victim
family or household member, and a six-month sentence for the count of threatening to commit a crime, deemed served.
2 The abuse prevention order requires, inter alia, that the defendant stay away from the victim's residence. The defendant is permitted to contact the victim to arrange child exchanges between the victim and the defendant for his parenting time.
3 The defendant has parenting time with the child on Wednesdays and alternating weekends. The incident occurred on a Wednesday.
2 received the text messages. The victim and her mother called
911 after they heard someone pounding on the door. The police
responded and investigated the report and found the defendant
0.2 miles away from the victim's residence approximately one
hour after they received the 911 call. When the police spoke to
the defendant, the defendant stated that he had been attempting
to contact the victim to arrange a child exchange because it was
his day for parenting time. Shortly thereafter, the police
placed him under arrest.
Discussion. "A determination whether a violation of
probation has occurred lies within the discretion of the hearing
judge." Commonwealth v. Bukin, 467 Mass. 516, 519-520 (2014).
"The Commonwealth must prove a violation of probation by a
preponderance of the evidence." Id. at 520. We also review a
judge's evidentiary decisions at a probation violation hearing
for abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Rainey, 491 Mass.
632, 648 (2023).
1. The text message screenshots. We review claims of
error not preserved at a probation final surrender hearing for
whether any error created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of
justice. See Commonwealth v. Pickering, 479 Mass. 589, 590
(2018).
At the violation of probation hearing, the Commonwealth
entered in evidence six screenshots of text messages that the
3 defendant allegedly sent to the victim's telephone. On appeal,
the defendant argues the screenshots should not have been
admitted because he was not given notice that they would be
entered in evidence prior to the hearing 4 and because the
screenshots were unreliable hearsay statements. Neither claim
is availing.
We begin by noting that on the day of the hearing, the
defendant did not argue that he could not go forward with the
hearing due to receiving the text messages that day. Nor did he
seek a continuance. In fact, the judge asked defense counsel
whether she objected to the admission of the screenshots, and
she responded, "No objection." Defense counsel then cross-
examined the victim and her mother about the content of the text
messages, challenged the victim's mother's basis of knowledge
that the defendant sent some messages from an unfamiliar number,
and questioned the responding officer about whether the
screenshots "could have been taken at any moment in time." We
therefore cannot say that the admission of the screenshots
without prior notice, if error, created a substantial risk of a
miscarriage of justice. See Pickering, 479 Mass. at 590.
4 We note that the Commonwealth disputes the defendant's claim that he did not receive notice of the screenshots prior to the hearing. Indeed, during an exchange regarding the admission of the text messages, the probation officer stated that she had "provided [defense counsel] all of the exhibits that [she] had previously received from the police department."
4 Because the screenshots were of text messages written by
the defendant, the screenshots were not hearsay. 5 See Mass. G.
Evid. § 801(d)(2) (2026) (party opponent statements not
hearsay). To the extent that the defendant challenges the
authenticity of the text messages, the judge had sufficient
evidence to find that the defendant sent the text messages to
the victim. See Commonwealth v. Welch, 487 Mass. 425, 440
(2021), quoting Mass. G. Evid. § 901(a) (2021) ("To satisfy the
requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of
evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it
is"). Specifically, the victim testified that she received most
of the text messages from a telephone number she used to
communicate with the defendant before and after she called the
police, and that she heard knocking on her apartment door around
the time she received the picture of an apartment hallway. 6 Most
5 The statements also were not hearsay because they were not entered in evidence for the truth of the defendant's statements, but to show that the defendant had made threatening statements to the victim and had contacted her beyond what was permissible in the restraining order. See Mass. G. Evid. § 801(c) (2026).
6 One screenshot of text messages was from a number unknown to the victim. However, the victim testified that she received the text messages from the unknown number after reporting the defendant to the police. The statements in the messages both reference the fact that the victim had called the police and the defendant's attempts to exchange the victim's and defendant's child, the same subject as the earlier text messages.
5 importantly, the judge also relied on the fact that, when police
questioned the defendant before arresting him, the defendant
acknowledged that he had sent text messages to the victim.
Accordingly, we discern no error in the admission of the text
messages. See Rainey, 491 Mass. at 648.
2. The defendant's cross-examination of the police
witness. The defendant argues that his attorney should have
been allowed to question the police officer about a report
regarding a June 10, 2024, incident where the victim had
reported that the defendant vandalized her automobile tires.
Specifically, the defendant asserts that, because the victim did
not personally see the defendant during either the June incident
or the October incident and the defendant was not present when
police arrived to investigate either incident, the victim likely
fabricated both reports. As the judge noted, the defendant's
violation of his probation was based on the October 23, 2024
incident. The judge further noted that the probative value of
the defendant's proposed line of questioning was too attenuated
to be relevant, especially where the defendant acknowledges that
police located him only 0.2 miles from the victim's apartment on
the day of the occurrence and he admitted that he had been
trying to contact the victim. See Mass. G. Evid. § 401
(evidence is relevant if it makes more or less probable fact of
consequence in determining action); Mass G. Evid. § 403 ("The
6 court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading
the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
cumulative evidence"). See also Rainey, 491 Mass. at 648.
Order revoking probation affirmed.
By the Court (Desmond, Tan & Wood, JJ. 7),
Clerk
Entered: April 27, 2026.
7 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.