Facts: Defendant James McDonald habitually drove his
truck through a residential neighborhood at around 4pm every day, usually at a
slow speed, and occasionally took photographs from his vehicle. The complainant,
a resident of the neighborhood, noticed that this behavior generally coincided
with a school bus’s afternoon drop-off route and contacted the police with her
suspicions. A Middleborough police officer asked McDonald to stay away from the
complainant’s street, but after McDonald’s behavior continued, the officer served
him with a no-trespass order and also applied for a warrant for his arrest.
Procedural Posture: A judge found McDonald
guilty of criminal harassment and sentenced him to a year of probation. The
defendant appealed on the grounds that the Commonwealth failed to establish all
requisite elements of criminal harassment.
Standard of Review: A criminal conviction
stands if any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, could find that all elements of the crime were
satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issue: Whether the Commonwealth proved all four elements
of criminal harassment?
Elements of Criminal Harassment: (1) The defendant
engaged in a knowing pattern of conduct or speech, or series of acts, on at
least three separate occasions; (2) the defendant intended to target the victim
with the harassing conduct or speech, or series of acts, on each occasion; (3)
the conduct or speech, or series of acts, were of such a nature that they
seriously alarmed the victim; (4) the conduct or speech, or series of acts, were
of such a nature that they would cause a reasonable person to suffer
substantial emotional distress; and (5) the defendant committed the conduct or
speech, or series of acts, willfully and maliciously.
Discussion: The defendant conceded that the evidence
was sufficient to establish that the complainant experienced severe anxiety and
alarm from his actions. However, the court agreed with the defendant that the
Commonwealth failed to prove the element of willful and malicious intent. McDonald’s
behavior, viewed objectively, cannot support an inference of any sinister or
wrongful focus on or targeting of the complainant. Driving down a public road,
looking at people in driveways, and taking photographs were public, facially
innocent actions that, without evidence of any menacing or threatening component,
either physical or verbal, or prior relationship with the complainant to
establish context, could not constitute harassment.
Judgment: The defendant’s conviction for criminal
harassment is reversed. (GC)
