Commonwealth v. Gorassi
2000 Mass. LEXIS 405, 733 N.E.2d 106, 432 Mass. 244 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Criminal assault under common law consists of either an attempted battery or an act that places another in reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery. An attempt to cause purely psychological harm, without an attempted or threatened application of physical force, does not constitute assault.
Facts:
- On June 25, 1996, the defendant, Gorassi, was present at the Marriott Hotel in Newton.
- Around 6 p.m., Gorassi followed two girls, aged eight and nine, down two hallways totaling 326 feet.
- At the end of the second hallway, Gorassi asked the girls to show him the outdoor pool and, after they declined, asked their names and if they wanted to see something pretty, at which point the girls ran away.
- Later that evening, around 8:30 p.m., Gorassi was at the Weston Public Library.
- Gorassi lured a three-year-old girl into a crafts room by telling her he had a rabbit to show her.
- The girl's mother found her daughter crying with her back against a wall.
- Gorassi was squatting a few inches from the girl, holding a towel stretched between his hands.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Gorassi, was charged in Superior Court with three indictments of assault with intent to commit kidnapping.
- Following a jury-waived trial, the trial judge found the defendant guilty on all three indictments.
- The defendant appealed his convictions to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- The Appeals Court reversed all three convictions, ordering a judgment of not guilty on two indictments and remanding the third for a new trial.
- The Commonwealth filed an application for further appellate review, which was granted by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
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 the common law definition of criminal assault, which requires either an attempted battery or a threat of imminent bodily harm, encompass a mere 'attempt to do psychological harm'?
Opinions:
Majority - Ireland, J.
No. The common law definition of assault does not include an attempt to do purely psychological harm; it is limited to either an attempted battery or a threat of imminent physical harm. The trial judge incorrectly expanded the definition of assault to include an 'attempt to do psychological harm.' Assault requires either: 1) an attempted battery (an attempt to use physical force on another), where the victim's awareness is not required, or 2) a threatened battery (objectively menacing conduct intended to put the victim in fear of immediate bodily harm). Because the trial judge may have convicted the defendant based on this erroneous legal standard, the convictions must be reversed. Regarding the specific incidents, the evidence for the hotel encounter was insufficient to prove an assault, as Gorassi's actions constituted enticement, not an attempted or threatened battery. However, the evidence for the library incident—where Gorassi had the child cornered and was reaching towards her—was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to infer an attempted battery, allowing for a retrial on that charge under the correct legal standard.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional, physically-grounded definition of common law assault in Massachusetts, explicitly rejecting its expansion to include purely psychological harm. It clarifies the boundary between criminal assault and conduct that is merely inappropriate or designed to entice, which may be covered by other statutes. For future cases, this precedent requires prosecutors to prove an overt physical act that constitutes either an attempt to make physical contact or a threat of immediate physical contact. The ruling protects defendants from being convicted of assault for behavior that, while unsettling, does not meet the specific elements of a physical threat required by common law.
