Commonwealth v. Defendant

Mass: Supreme Judicial Court
421 Mass. 391, 657 NE 2d 467 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A new rule of criminal law declaring a statute unconstitutionally vague will not be applied retroactively to a defendant on direct appeal who failed to raise the constitutional issue at trial, unless the defendant's conviction under the statute created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Facts:

The defendant, Matsos, and the victim, a Black Salem police officer, first met in early 1991.
On May 18, 1992, Matsos confronted the victim on her way to work, and she told him to stop following her.
From May 1992 to March 1993, Matsos sent the victim approximately forty letters, many containing explicit sexual fantasies, racial epithets, and references to guns, silencers, and dangerous acquaintances.
The letters revealed that Matsos was actively spying on the victim's movements and private life.
In one letter, Matsos identified his return address as 'The Stalker' and wrote a threat: 'There is [going to come] a day when you are [going to] want to come and see me... But you will never see me, your eyes will alway[s] be closed.'
On July 17, 1992, Matsos sent documents to the victim's employer, the Salem police department, falsely accusing her of using drugs with him, which prompted an extensive internal affairs investigation against her.
As a result of Matsos's conduct, the victim became fearful, changed her residence, and installed a special telephone service to screen her calls.

Procedural Posture:

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts prosecuted the defendant, Matsos, in a Massachusetts District Court for the crime of stalking under G. L. c. 265, § 43.
At the close of the Commonwealth's case, the defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty, which the trial judge denied.
A jury of six found Matsos guilty of stalking.
Matsos appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that a subsequent Supreme Judicial Court decision holding the stalking statute unconstitutional should be applied retroactively to his case.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the appeal from the intermediate appellate court to itself on its own motion.

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 subsequent judicial decision holding a stalking statute unconstitutionally vague require the reversal of a conviction for a defendant on direct appeal who failed to raise the constitutional challenge at trial?

Opinions:

Majority - Greaney, J.

No, a subsequent judicial decision holding the stalking statute unconstitutionally vague does not require the reversal of the defendant's conviction. A defendant on direct appeal is only entitled to the retroactive application of a new rule of criminal law if the issue was raised at trial. Because the defendant failed to challenge the statute's constitutionality at trial, the court reviews the conviction only to determine if it created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The court concludes it did not, for two primary reasons. First, the stalking statute criminalizes both 'following' and 'harassing,' and there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict on the 'following' prong, which was not the subject of the vagueness challenge. Second, the defendant’s conduct—sending over forty threatening letters, making false accusations to the victim’s employer, and spying on her—was so clearly within the scope of prohibited 'harassment' that the statute provided him with fair notice that his behavior was illegal. Therefore, prosecuting him under the statute did not violate due process or result in a miscarriage of justice. The court also held that the evidence of threats was sufficient for conviction, analogizing the 'threat' element of the stalking statute to the common law definition of assault, where the focus is on whether the defendant's actions and words, in light of the circumstances, would place a reasonable person in apprehension of force.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the 'raise-or-waive' principle in criminal appeals, limiting the retroactive application of new constitutional rules to defendants who preserved the issue at trial. It establishes that a conviction under a statute later found unconstitutionally vague will not be automatically reversed if the defendant failed to object at trial. Instead, the conviction will stand unless it created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. This holding prevents defendants whose conduct was clearly proscribed from benefiting from a statutory defect they did not challenge, thereby balancing procedural fairness with the finality of convictions where the defendant had fair notice their conduct was criminal.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth v. Defendant (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"