 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Commonwealth v Matsos
S. Ct. Mass. 1995
Author:- Sam Biers
Facts: def became interested in a female police officer. Over the next ten months he sent forty lengthy letters referencing sexual fantasies, anger with the victim, some racial overtones, affiliation with criminal friends, spying activities upon the victim. Def filed a complaint against the victim with the P Dept for alleged drug usage. Def identified himself as “The Stalker,” in a return address and he warned the victim “There is [going to come] a day when you are [going to] want to come and see me . . . But you will never see me, your eyes will alway[s] be closed.”
Issue: Whether evidence was insufficient to prove a threat with intent to place victim in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury? Whether statutory language, as applied in this case , was unconstitutionally vague?
Holding: Yes. No.
Procedure: Jury conviction for Stalking. Affirmed.
Rule: Whoever willfully maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a threat with intent to place the victim in imminent fear of death or bodily injury. Similar to assault. Apprehension that force may be used is sufficient for the offense of assault. Apprehension is determined by actions or words of def. of anticipated force.
Court Rationale: The defendant’s actions clearly fall within the scope of conduct prohibited by the harassment portion of the statute, even if the statute is interpreted as requiring that the defendant engage repeatedly in patterns of conduct or series of acts that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. The jury heard more than forty letters, . . .twenty three were replete with vulgar language, sexual fantasies about the victim, and threats of various kinds. Measured by any standard these facts establish that the defendant’s campaign of harassment involved distinctive, but equally disturbing, patterns of conduct.
Statute was determined to be void for vagueness one year after def conviction.