── Commonwealth v. Brunette-Silveira ──
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
Date: May 12, 2026
Category: General
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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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;
[email protected]
24-P-1351 Appeals Court
COMMONWEALTH vs. MANUEL BRUNETTE-SILVEIRA.
No. 24-P-1351.
Suffolk. November 4, 2025. – May 12, 2026.
Present: Hershfang, Hodgens, & Smyth, JJ.
Assault and Battery on Certain Public Officers and Employees.
Threatening. Mental Health. Criminal Responsibility.
Insanity. Evidence, Insanity, Expert opinion. Witness,
Expert. Practice, Criminal, Motion for a required finding.
Complaint received and sworn to in the Central Division of
the Boston Municipal Court Department on June 2, 2023.
The case was heard by Mark H. Summerville, J.
Meghan K. Oreste for the defendant.
Megan Keane (David D. McGowan, Assistant District Attorney,
also present) for the Commonwealth.
HERSHFANG, J. After a bench trial by a judge of the Boston
Municipal Court, the defendant was convicted of four counts of
assault and battery on a police officer in violation of G. L.
c. 265, § 13D, and one count of threatening to commit a crime in
violation of G. L. c. 275, § 2. The defendant contends, as he
2
did in two motions for a required finding of not guilty, that
the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to
permit a rational fact finder to find beyond a reasonable doubt
that he was criminally responsible at the time of the crimes.
We agree and reverse.
Background. Because the defendant challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence, we describe the trial evidence in
the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth
v. Griffin, 475 Mass. 848, 849 (2016). The charges arose after
two police officers were called to the Edward W. Brooke Court
House for a person causing a disturbance. Because our analysis
depends in large part on distinguishing evidence from inference,
we describe in some detail the testimony of those two officers,
who were the victims of the charged crimes and the
Commonwealth's only trial witnesses.
When the officers arrived at the court house, they spoke
with court officers who provided a description of the person and
the direction in which he had gone. The officers set out from
the court house and, about one minute later, found someone
matching the description (the defendant) sitting on the stairs
"right down the street." The officers approached the defendant,
saying "something to the effect[] of" "can we speak with you,"
or "how are you, sir?" The defendant responded, "What bitch"
and immediately spit on the face and chest of one of the
3
officers (first officer). The officers arrested and handcuffed
the defendant and put him in the cruiser for the short drive to
the police station.
At the station, the officers sought to remove the defendant
from the cruiser. He spit on the second officer's head and said
"something to the effect of, 'What, bitch, I'm going to punch
you in the face.'" The officers put the defendant "in [a]
holding cell because he wasn't being cooperative. [They] let
him calm down. Then [they] attempted to take him out and
fingerprint him." When they removed his handcuffs, the
defendant punched the second officer in the shoulder. The
officers replaced the handcuffs and returned the defendant to
the cell.
The second officer had no further contact with the
defendant.