We recently secured a full acquittal for a client facing domestic violence charges. A victory at BMC West Roxbury. This case demonstrates a truth we see too often: the person who calls 911 first is not always the victim.
The Charge
Our client faced Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member under G.L. c. 265, § 13M(a). The potential consequences were severe: up to two and a half years of incarceration, fines up to $5,000, mandatory completion of a batterer’s intervention program, and permanent federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
The Commonwealth's Burden
To obtain a conviction, the Commonwealth had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our client intentionally touched the alleged victim without justification, causing harm or offense.
Critically, Massachusetts law recognizes self-defense. A person who reasonably believes they are being attacked may use reasonable force to defend themselves. If our client acted in lawful self-defense, he could not be guilty.
This meant the central question at trial was not whether physical contact occurred, but who initiated it.
The Police Investigation
The investigation was incomplete from the start.
An eyewitness had observed the entire altercation in real-time over FaceTime. She was still on the call when officers arrived. Police spoke with her briefly at the scene—then never followed up. No formal statement. No video collection. No effort to determine what she witnessed.
The alleged victim told officers she had no injuries. Police observed none. She declined EMS evaluation multiple times. Our client was arrested anyway.
Our Investigation
We do not rely on incomplete police work. We conducted our own investigation.
We reviewed all body-worn camera footage, scrutinized the police report, and examined the history between the parties. That review revealed a pattern of prior aggressive behavior by the alleged victim toward our client.
We also reached out to the FaceTime witness—our client’s sister—to learn what she actually saw that night. What she told us changed the case.
The Trial
The Alleged Victim's Inconsistent Account
At trial, we demonstrated that the alleged victim’s story did not hold together. Her timeline shifted between the night of the incident and her courtroom testimony. Details changed. Sequences contradicted. Key claims she made at trial were absent from her original account.
We walked the jury through these inconsistencies methodically, raising legitimate questions about the reliability of her version of events.
Evidence of Prior Aggression
Under Massachusetts evidentiary rules, proof of a victim’s violent character is admissible when the identity of the first aggressor is in dispute. We introduced evidence of prior incidents in which the alleged victim had been physically aggressive toward our client, providing critical context for the jury.
The Eyewitness
We called our client’s sister to the stand. She testified to what she personally observed over FaceTime: the alleged victim initiated the physical contact. She watched it happen live. This was direct eyewitness testimony—not speculation, not inference.
Her testimony established that our client was not the first aggressor. The alleged victim was.
The Verdict
The jury saw the full picture: a rushed investigation, a shifting story, a documented history of aggression, and an eyewitness who watched the alleged victim start the altercation.
The Commonwealth failed to meet its burden. Our client was found not guilty.
Facing Domestic Violence Charges?
If you have been charged with a domestic violence offense in Massachusetts, you need an attorney who will investigate independently, master the evidence, and hold the Commonwealth to its burden of proof. At the Law Office of Matthew W. Peterson, we handled cases, especially client-facing domestic violence charges. With 15 years of combined legal experience, we know how to navigate the process to protect your rights.
