Commonwealth v. Amrith A. Maharajh.

── Commonwealth v. Amrith A. Maharajh. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 25-P-425 COMMONWEALTH vs. AMRITH A. MAHARAJH. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 After a jury-waived trial, on an indictment charging aggravated assault and battery, a Superior Court judge found the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of assault and battery. The judge also found the defendant guilty of mayhem and assault and battery on a household member. On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence of mayhem, and that the judge abused his discretion by admitting evidence of the defendant's prior bad acts. We affirm. 1. Sufficiency of evidence. The defendant was convicted under the second branch of the mayhem statute, G. L. c. 265, § 14,1 for using a kitchen knife to cut the victim's neck, leaving a scar. The defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his mayhem conviction where the Commonwealth's evidence failed to establish that he had the specific intent to maim or disfigure the victim. Based on the evidence presented, we disagree. When analyzing whether the record evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, an appellate court is not required to "ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Hartnett, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 467, 475 (2008), quoting Commonwealth v. Velasquez, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 147, 152 (1999). Nor are we obligated to "reread the record from a [defendant]'s perspective." Palmariello v. Superintendent of M.C.I. Norfolk, 873 F.2d 491, 493 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 865 (1989). See Commonwealth v. Duncan, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 150, 152 (2008). Rather, the relevant "question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements 1 The second branch of the mayhem statute states "whoever, with intent to maim or disfigure, assaults another person with a dangerous weapon, substance or chemical, and by such assault disfigures, cripples or inflicts serious or permanent physical injury upon such person . . . shall be punished." G. L. c. 265, § 14. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 425 Mass. 718, 721-722 (1997). 2 of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The mental state required to support a mayhem conviction "is satisfied by direct or inferential proof that the assault was intentional, unjustified, and made with the reasonable appreciation on the assailant's part that a disabling or disfiguring injury would result." Commonwealth v. Ogden O., 448 Mass. 798, 800 (2007), quoting Commonwealth v. Davis, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 190, 196 (1980). "[S]pecific intent may . . . be inferred from the severity and extent of the [victim's] injuri