Heard: April 6, 2017.
received and sworn to in the jury session of the Nantucket
Division of the District Court Department on July 17, 2015.
case was tried before Thomas S. Barrett, J.
Crane for the defendant.
Catherine H. Robertson, Assistant District Attorney, for the
Present: Vuono, Wolohojian, & Carhart, JJ. 
consider here whether G. L. c. 272, § 105, as amended by
St. 2014, c. 43, in response to Commonwealth
v. Robertson, 467 Mass. 371 (2014),
protects people in public places. The defendant argues that,
although the Legislature clearly intended that the amended
statute apply to public places, it failed to effectuate its
intent. We disagree, and affirm the defendant's
defendant was charged with, and convicted of, violating G. L.
c. 272, § 105, for using his cellphone to videotape
surreptitiously two teenage girls under their sundresses
while traveling on the ferry to Nantucket. The conduct took
place on July 12, 2015, more than a year after the
Legislature had -- in response to public outcry over the
Robertson decision -- amended the statute to add the
following language, portions of which we have highlighted
because they are our focus here:
"Whoever wilfully photographs, videotapes or
electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct
or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of
a person under or around the person's clothing to view or
attempt to view the person's sexual or other intimate
parts when a reasonable person would believe that
the person's sexual or other intimate parts would not
be visible to the public, and without the person's
knowledge and consent, shall be punished ..."
G. L. c. 272, § 105 (b) .
"'Sexual or other intimate parts, ' [are defined
as] human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast
below a point immediately above the tip of the areola,
whether naked or covered by clothing or
G. L. c. 272, § 105 (a.) . In
essence, the defendant argues that because no reasonable
person would believe his or her clothed anatomy would not be
visible in a public place, the statute must be limited to
amended language came about, as we noted above, in response
to public reaction to Robertson, supra, in
which the Supreme Judicial Court reversed the conviction of a
man who had surreptitiously videotaped and photographed the
clothed crotch areas of women seated across from him on the
MBTA trolley. Robertson involved the earlier version
of the statute, which applied only to persons who were
photographed when "nude or partially nude."
Id. at 375. Because the victims in that case were
neither nude nor partially nude, the Supreme Judicial Court
concluded that the defendant's conduct was not covered by