NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 17-P-849 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. OSWALDO O.,1 a juvenile. No. 17-P-849. Suffolk. September 6, 2018. - December 10, 2018. Present: Blake, Wendlandt, & McDonough, JJ. Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Moot Question. Juvenile Court, Delinquent child. Practice, Civil, Moot case. Practice, Criminal, Juvenile delinquency proceeding. Intent. Due Process of Law, Juvenile delinquency proceeding, Notice. Complaint received and sworn to in the Suffolk County Division of the Juvenile Court Department on May 25, 2016. The case was heard by Stephen M. Limon, J. Eva G. Jellison for the juvenile. Teresa K. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. WENDLANDT, J. This case involves the application of the doctrine of transferred intent to the crime of assault, which consists of two forms: attempted battery and immediately 1 A pseudonym. 2 threatened battery. In Commonwealth v. Melton, 436 Mass. 291 (2002), the Supreme Judicial Court applied the doctrine in connection with the intent element of the attempted battery form of assault. We address now whether the doctrine applies to the intent element of the immediately threatened battery form of assault. In particular, following a bench trial, a Juvenile Court judge adjudicated the juvenile delinquent on one count of assault by means of a dangerous weapon, G. L. c. 265, ยง 15B.2 On appeal, the juvenile contends the judge found only that he intended to place one specific victim3 in fear (as to whom there was no charge) and improperly relied on the doctrine of transferred intent to satisfy the intent element of the immediately threatened battery form of assault with regard to two different victims.4 Concluding that the doctrine of transferred intent applies to the immediately threatened battery form of assault, we affirm. 2 The judge allowed the juvenile's motion for a directed finding of not delinquent on a second count, charging a municipal ordinance violation for carrying a dangerous weapon. 3 We shall refer to this victim as "E"; his surname was not in the record. 4 Although the trial judge's findings discuss the doctrine of transferred intent with respect to two different victims (B.H. and A.R.), the delinquency complaint charged the juvenile with only one count of assault by means of a dangerous weapon, against B.H. This discrepancy does not alter our analysis. 3 Background. The judge's underlying factual findings are not disputed. On May 24, 2016, three high school students (B.H., A.R.,5 and B.H.'s friend, E) were having lunch at a restaurant near their high school in Chelsea when the juvenile approached them. The juvenile was wearing a Tennessee Titans hat, while E was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat; the juvenile asked E to which gang he belonged and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals