Commonwealth v. Cullen (May 31, 2011)
Docket No. 10 – P – 1399.
Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
The defendant was convicted of stalking his former therapist. He appeals from that judgment the judge erred in denying his motions to suppress evidence and for a required finding of not guilty.
Facts: Robert Nazarro, a therapist at the Counseling and Psychotherapy Center (CPC), treated the defendant from December, 2006 to August, 2008. In 2009 over an eight-month period, the CPC office began to receive 25 anonymous mailings. The mailings contained newspaper articles, including several critical of sex offender treatment programs, a poster visually depicting numerous sexual positions etc. The director of CPC opened all mailings and uncovered the defendant’s identity. He finally informed Nazarro of the correspondence. Upon knowing the mailings, Nazarro was shocked and contacted the police.
The officer took the defendant into custody. During the booking process, officer conducted an inventory search to ensure that he did not possess contraband. The search revealed several copies of a newspaper article, and a list of names, including the director of CPC.
Issue1: Whether 25 mailings constitute “a pattern of conduct or series of acts” to support a finding of stalking.
Yes. To support a stalking under G.L. c. 265, § 43(a), the Commonwealth must prove that a person willfully and maliciously engaged 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 cuase a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. Even though the victim was exposed to the mailings in bulk on one sole occasion, the statute does not require each act in the series or pattern to produce the result separately. The twenty-five separate mailings over a period of eight months satisfies the requisite pattern or series.
Issue2: Whether there is sufficient evidence of a targeted threat to constitute a requisite threat under the statute.
Yes. The statute provides that the Commonwealth must prove that a person makes a threat with the intent to place that person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury. The court does not recognize the generalized complaints about the workings of an organization. However, here the mailings were focused on the victim, and sufficiently explicit in the threatening nature of their message. The threats were more than enough to place a reasonable person in imminent fear of death or bodily harm and induce him to suffer substantial emotional distress.
Issue3: Whether the police officer was entitled to remove and unfold papers found on the defendant during patfrisk conducted during booking process.
Yes. The police officer was not required to ignore materials that obviously related to the charges underlying the arrest. No purpose is served by requiring him to do so.
Judgment affirmed.
Prepared by YK
