Commonwealth v. Evaliz Soto.

── Commonwealth v. Evaliz Soto. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 14, 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-534 COMMONWEALTH vs. EVALIZ SOTO. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 On February 29, 2024, following a jury-waived trial, a Boston Municipal Court judge found the defendant guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15A (b), and assault and battery on a family or household member in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a).1 The defendant appeals, contending that the judge erred by denying her motions for required findings of not guilty for each charge which were made both at the close of the Commonwealth's case and renewed at the close of the defendant's case. We affirm. 1The defendant received one year of probation with conditions, namely that the defendant complete an anger management program within the first six months of her probation and submit to a mental health evaluation.  Discussion. In reviewing the denial of motions for required findings of not guilty we review for "whether the evidence, in its light most favorable to the Commonwealth, notwithstanding the contrary evidence presented by the defendant, is sufficient . . . to permit the jury to infer the existence of the essential elements of the crime charged" (citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979). "[T]he evidence and the inferences permitted to be drawn therefrom must be of sufficient force to bring minds of ordinary intelligence and sagacity to the persuasion of [guilt] beyond a reasonable doubt" (quotation and citation omitted). Id. Because the Commonwealth's case did not deteriorate during the presentation of the defendant's evidence, we need not consider separately the defendant's renewed motions for required findings of not guilty made at the close of all the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Kelley, 370 Mass. 147, 150 n.1 (1976). See also Commonwealth v. Dubois, 451 Mass. 20, 28 (2008), quoting Commonwealth v. O'Laughlin, 446 Mass. 188, 203 (2006) ("Deterioration only occurs where the Commonwealth's evidence of necessary elements 'is later shown to be incredible or conclusively incorrect'"). "A victim's testimony of facts constituting an element of a charged offense is sufficient, 2 standing alone, if credited by the [fact finder]." Commonwealth v. Tillson, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 180, 186 (2024).2 1. Assault and battery with dangerous weapon. To prove that a defendant committed assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, the Commonwealth must show that "(1) the defendant intentionally touched the victim, however slightly; (2) the touching was unjustified; and (3) the touching was done by means of (i.e., with) a dangerous weapon." Commonwealth v. Raedy, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 440, 443 (2007). "[O]rdinarily innocuous items can be considered dangerous weapons when used in an improper and dangerous manner.