Lexplug logoLexplug

Commonwealth v. Boodoosingh

Massachusetts Appeals Court
85 Mass. App. Ct. 902, 2014 WL 763532, 4 N.E.3d 1293 (2014)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An assault by attempted battery is established when a defendant commits overt acts that bring them very near in time and ability to the commission of the completed crime, even if the defendant does not perform the final act, such as swinging a weapon, before being stopped by a third party.


Facts:

  • During an encounter between the defendant and Luis, the defendant held a baseball bat.
  • Nancy Lizardo, Luis's mother, stepped between the two men and asked them not to fight with weapons.
  • The defendant refused to drop the bat and yelled, “I’m going to fuck him up.”
  • The defendant then lifted his hand to try to hit Luis, who was standing only a foot behind Nancy.
  • Before the defendant could strike, Nancy pushed him away, preventing the battery.

Procedural Posture:

  • The defendant was tried on criminal charges in a Massachusetts Superior Court.
  • A jury found the defendant guilty of assault by means of a dangerous weapon.
  • The defendant (appellant) appealed the conviction to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, with the Commonwealth (appellee) responding.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a defendant commit assault by means of a dangerous weapon under an attempted battery theory when he rushes toward a victim with a raised baseball bat, states an intent to harm, and is stopped by a third party just before he is able to strike?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, a defendant commits assault by attempted battery under these circumstances. The evidence is sufficient because the defendant's overt acts brought him 'very near in time and ability' to accomplishing the battery. The court rejected the defendant's argument that he needed to actually 'swing' the bat for his actions to constitute an attempt. Citing Commonwealth v. Porro, the court explained that an attempt is proven if the defendant commits overt acts that bring him reasonably close to completing the crime. The actions of rushing at Luis with a raised bat, rejecting pleas to stop, and getting within a few feet before being physically stopped by Nancy were sufficient to establish that he came 'reasonably close' to accomplishing the intended battery.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the 'overt act' requirement for the crime of assault by attempted battery in Massachusetts. It reinforces the legal principle that the defendant does not need to perform the final possible act (e.g., swinging the bat) to be found guilty of an attempt. The case establishes that being thwarted by a third party's intervention does not negate the criminal attempt if the defendant has already taken substantial steps that bring them 'very near' to completing the crime. This precedent lowers the threshold for what constitutes an attempt, focusing on the defendant's proximity to success rather than on the completion of their intended physical motion.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Commonwealth v. Boodoosingh (2014) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Boodoosingh