COMMONWEALTH v. CRISTINO

No. 16-P-761.

COMMONWEALTH vs. DOMINICK P. CRISTINO, JR.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jane A. Sullivan , A.D.A., Susan M. Oftring , A.D.A., for Commonwealth, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Paula Lynch, Esquire , for Dominick P. Cristino, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

By the Court (Milkey, Sullivan & Desmond, JJ.)


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its 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 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).

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of two counts of stalking pursuant to G. L. c. 265, § 43(a). On appeal, he argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the requisite elements of the offense, and that the judge's denial of his motion for a required finding of not guilty was erroneous. We reverse.

Background.

The victims of the defendant's alleged stalking are the chief of police and deputy chief of police in Milford. The evidence against the defendant came primarily from a series of Facebook posts that he made, where he openly criticized the two heads of the police department and accused them of corruption, drinking on the job, abusing alcohol, and having improper relationships with local drug dealers and criminals. A total of seventeen videos from Facebook were submitted in evidence after having been posted to his private, personal page. There was also evidence of signs the defendant posted on his property, which was on Milford's Main Street. The signs contained derogatory statements about the chief and deputy chief.1 Finally, the chief of police testified that he had observed the defendant following him in his car while driving through the town.2

The substance of the Facebook videos in question varied from complaints about the chief and deputy chief, threats to take them to court, accusations that they were regularly drinking at a local restaurant and bar named Isabel's, and several videos depicting either the chief's or the deputy chief's vehicles in the parking lot at Isabel's or parked nearby. Mixed in throughout the videos are various statements which arguably, if taken alone, could be considered to be threats. These include the defendant saying he was going back to "old school" in a video in which he criticized the chief and deputy chief for spending time with criminals and stating that they, and the town, were "bananas." In a separate video, while addressing "Chiefy Weify," the defendant stated: "I'm not afraid of you. You're afraid of me, and I would be too." In a broader sense, this video portrays the defendant recording himself while accusing the chief and deputy chief of using drugs and associating with drug dealers. Finally, when speaking to the unknown person who removed a license plate from his vehicle,3 the defendant said, "I hope they catch you. Better them catching you than me anyway, because I'd grab you by the hair and keep you here or a couple of stomps on your face."

To be found guilty of stalking, it must be proven that a person "(1) willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person which seriously alarms or annoys that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and (2) makes a threat with intent to place the person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury." G. L. c. 265, § 43(a), as amended through St. 2010, c. 92, § 9. On appeal, the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove: that his Facebook posts were "directed at" either alleged victim; that he indicated an intent to physically threaten either of the officers; that the officers' fear was reasonable; and that he intended to communicate a threat of bodily injury. He further argues that his Facebook posts were constitutionally protected speech and that the judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on "true threats."

In denying the defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty, the judge ruled that "there was clear evidence to establish that these were true threats rather than protected speech under the First Amendment," and, therefore, there was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to determine each element of the stalking statute was met.

Discussion.

On review of the judge's denial of the defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty, "we determine whether the evidence offered by the Commonwealth, together with reasonable inferences therefrom, when viewed in its light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to persuade a rational jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of every element of the crime charged." Commonwealth v. Campbell, 378 Mass. 680, 686 (1979). A conviction may not "rest upon the piling of inference upon inference or conjecture and speculation." Commonwealth v. Mandile, 403 Mass. 93, 94 (1988). "[I]t is not enough for the appellate court to find that there was some record evidence, however slight, to support each essential element of the offense." Ibid., quoting from Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979).

We conclude that the statements made by the defendant that were the basis for his convictions were constitutionally protected speech, and therefore could not be the basis for conviction. "[R]emarks about a local public official constituted political speech and were at the core of the speech that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects." Van Liew v. Stansfield, 474 Mass. 31, 38 (2016). See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commn., 514 U.S. 334, 346 (1995), quoting from Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957) ("Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order `to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people'"). Although these types of public accusations may be "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp," New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964), this form of political speech must remain "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." Ibid.

"Nevertheless, `certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech,'" do not receive constitutional protection, including "true threats." O'Brien v. Borowski, 461 Mass. 415, 422 (2012), quoting from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571, 572 (1942). See Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969); Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003). See also United States v. Alvarez, 132 S.Ct. 2537, 2544 (2012) (listing "true threats" as among "historic and traditional" categories of unprotected speech [citations omitted]). Comparing the definition of a true threat to the threat component of the stalking statute, we conclude that any verbal or written communication that qualifies as a threat as defined in the statute is also a true threat, and therefore is not entitled to protection under the First Amendment. See Commonwealth v. Walters, 472 Mass. 680, 690-691 (2015).

"`True threats' encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. . . . The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats `protect[s] individuals from the fear of violence' and `from the disruption that fear engenders,' in addition to protecting people `from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.'" Borowski, supra at 423, quoting from Virginia v. Black, supra at 359-360. This class of unprotected speech was developed "to help distinguish between words that literally threaten but have an expressive purpose such as political hyperbole, and words that are intended to place the target of the threat in fear, whether the threat is veiled or explicit." Commonwealth v. Chou, 433 Mass. 229, 236 (2001). "The assessment whether the defendant made a threat is not confined to a technical analysis of the precise words uttered. Rather, the jury may consider the context in which the allegedly threatening statement was made and all of the surrounding circumstances." Commonwealth v. Sholley, 432 Mass. 721, 725 (2000).

We compare the present case to two recent decisions by the Supreme Judicial Court. In Walters, supra at 694-697, the court vacated a stalking conviction stemming from a defendant's Facebook page for insufficient evidence. The defendant in Walters was convicted of stalking his former girl friend, who had begun dating another man. Immediately following their breakup, the defendant made multiple references about his guns to the victim in veiled apparent threats. See id. at 683. The defendant's conviction was based on his Facebook profile page posted several years after they broke up, which the victim was shown by her boy friend. The defendant's main profile picture showed him with a large gun across his lap. Elsewhere on his profile page the defendant wrote a quotation: "Make no mistake of my will to succeed in bringing you two idiots to justice." The Supreme Judicial Court held that the evidence of the defendant's intent was insufficient because "even if one reads the sentence in combination with the photograph of the defendant, any particular violent message that might be attributed to the defendant from the presence of these two elements on the same page is speculative." Id. at 695.

The defendant in Commonwealth v. Bigelow, 475 Mass. 554, 555 (2016), was convicted of two counts of criminal harassment4 after sending five letters to a town selectman and his wife. The letters were sent anonymously and were riddled with personal insults and vulgarities, but the crux of the letters was criticism aimed at the selectman's ability to perform his job as a public official. In determining that there was insufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction as it related to his actions against the selectman, the Supreme Judicial Court noted that his position as a government official impacted the reach of the defendant's First Amendment protections. "Because these letters were directed at an elected political official and primarily discuss issues of public concern — [the selectman]'s qualifications for and performance as a selectman — the letters fall within the category of constitutionally protected political speech at the core of the First Amendment." Id. at 562. "Where matters of public concern are the focus — that is, `any matter of political, social, or other concern to community' — the First Amendment protections are often more rigorous than when matters of private significance are at issue." Ibid., quoting from Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 453 (2011). Accordingly, since "the essence of the conduct was speech, and in particular, constitutionally protected speech," there was insufficient evidence to support his criminal harassment conviction as it related to the selectman. Id. at 561.

Here, we conclude that the judge erred in qualifying the defendant's Facebook posts as "true threats," and therefore unprotected speech. True threats include both "direct threats of imminent physical harm" and "words or actions that — taking into account the context in which they arise — cause the victim to fear such [imminent physical] harm now or in the future." Van Liew, 474 Mass. at 37, quoting from O'Brien, 461 Mass. at 425. Having reviewed the Facebook postings that were the grounds for the defendant's convictions and having considered the context of the videos, we conclude that they did not constitute threats of the kinds of unlawful acts of violence that render speech unprotected. See O'Brien, supra at 423. Rather, the defendant's posts "primarily discuss issues of public concern," as they are clearly directed at exposing what the defendant considered to be shortcomings in the chief's and deputy chief's ability to properly perform their public positions. See Bigelow, supra at 562. In accusing the chief and deputy chief of drinking on the job, spending time with known local criminals, and generally being corrupt, the defendant's videos were obviously attacking their capacity to effectively serve as police officers. Statements taken individually after being parsed from the videos as a whole — such as the chief's testimony that he took the defendant's statement that he was going back to "old school" to mean the defendant was going to physically assault him — are too remote and speculative to support a determination that the speech was unprotected. See Walters, 472 Mass. at 695. As such, the judge erred in determining that the defendant's speech in the videos constituted "true threats."5

The Supreme Judicial Court has held that "any verbal or written communication that qualifies as a threat as defined in the statute is also a `true threat,' and therefore is not entitled to protection under the First Amendment." Walters, supra at 691. Accordingly, as we have already concluded that the evidence introduced by the Commonwealth did not rise to the level of a true threat, the threat component of the stalking statute cannot be met. The judge's denial of the defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty was therefore erroneous, as the defendant's speech was protected by the First Amendment and an essential element of the charged offense is not supported by the evidence.

Judgments reversed. Verdicts set aside. Judgments for defendant.

FootNotes


6. The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
1. One sign read "Fuck you, chiefs of police." Another read "Milford police chiefs, kings of Budweiser."
2. The record suggests that all accusations by the chief of the defendant following him occurred on public roads and never at the chief's home.
3. The defendant surmises in this video that his license plate was stolen by the deputy chief's child, but does not offer any basis for this accusation. Regardless, the deputy chief's son is not a complainant in this matter.
4. The criminal harassment statute mirrors the stalking statute, "except that the stalking statute contains an additional element of making a threat to induce fear of death or bodily injury." Commonwealth v. Paton, 63 Mass.App.Ct. 215, 218 (2005).
5. We recognize that the judge did not have the benefit of Bigelow when he determined that the defendant's Facebook videos were "true threats." However, we agree with the defendant's secondary argument that even if the judge did deny his motion for a required finding of not guilty, the judge should have instructed the jury on true threats to aid in their decision-making.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases