Heard: June 5, 2017.
found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March
pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Mary-Lou
Rup, J.; a motion for reconsideration was considered by C.
Jeffrey Kinder, J., and the cases were tried before him.
Deborah Bates Riordan for the defendant.
Bethany C. Lynch, Assistant District Attorney, for the
Sullivan, Henry, & Shin, JJ.
Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of stalking, two
counts of criminal harassment, and attempt to commit a crime
(violation of a harassment prevention order). On appeal the
defendant argues that (1) the motion judge should have
suppressed evidence of a letter that he wrote from prison
because the letter was seized in violation of his rights
under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
(2) the trial judge gave an erroneous jury instruction on the
definition of "malicious" conduct, as it pertains
to stalking and criminal harassment, and (3) the evidence was
insufficient to prove that the defendant was guilty of those
offenses. We affirm.
convictions at issue arose from interactions that the
defendant had with two victims. We summarize the facts
relating to each victim in turn, viewing the evidence and the
reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable
to the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Latimore,
378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979) .
1 -- Miranda.
of 2013, Miranda interviewed and hired the defendant for a
position at Burger King. The following day, the defendant
returned to see Miranda, claiming to have questions about
company policy. Miranda spoke to him for a couple of minutes.
defendant returned the next day looking for Miranda, but she
was not working. The defendant then asked another employee
for Miranda's phone number and schedule. When the
employee would not give him that information, he requested
that she call Miranda for him, which she declined to do.
Later the same week, the defendant called Miranda at work and
asked to set up a time to go over the employee manual and
company policy. Although Miranda directed him to speak with
the owner instead and gave him the main office number, he
showed up again the next day looking for her.
days later, Miranda received a letter from the defendant on
her home fax machine, which was connected to her home phone
line. She thereafter received the same letter by mail at her
home address. The defendant began the letter by stating,
"It's your CIA boyfriend and hopefully your future
husband." He then stated, "The most important issue
that we need to clarify is the relationship between you and
I. From the first meeting on, our attraction to each other
was well defined indeed. You can't hide something like
that and we need to address it immediately." The
defendant told Miranda that he had sent her text messages
asking her to marry him and that he needed to see her
"to discuss this matter and clearly define [their]
relationship." He also ...