DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE APPEALS COURT PURSUANT TO ITS RULE 1:28 ARE PRIMARILY ADDRESSED TO THE PARTIES AND, THEREFORE, MAY NOT FULLY ADDRESS THE FACTS OF THE CASE OR THE PANEL'S DECISIONAL RATIONALE. MOREOVER, RULE 1:28 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.
PUBLISHED IN TABLE FORMAT IN THE MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT REPORTS.
PUBLISHED IN TABLE FORMAT IN THE NORTH EASTERN REPORTER.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The principal issue raised on appeal by the defendant, George S. Shoreman, is whether there is a rational basis for the jury's decision that he was not guilty of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon under G. L. c. 265, § 15A, but guilty of the lesser included charge of assault and battery under G. L. c. 265, § 13A, on the basis of an incident involving his girlfriend, Amy Coletti (Coletti or victim) in which the only witness to testify that the victim was struck with the defendant's motorcycle helmet testified that the blows were forceful and caused the victim to back up. We affirm.
The jury heard two divergent but firsthand accounts of the altercation between the defendant and the victim on the street outside a home in Newburyport. Joseph Hannon, who worked at a nearby residential substance abuse treatment facility, observed the incident from about forty feet away. Both the victim and Hannon agree that the defendant was holding a red motorcycle helmet. Hannon testified that he saw the defendant hit the victim with the red helmet twice and that "it looked as though" the blows were forceful and caused the victim to back up. The victim, on the other hand, testified that the defendant never hit her with the helmet. The victim did testify that she tried to grab the helmet from the defendant, but he ...