Commonwealth v. Mark D. Eldridge.

── Commonwealth v. Mark D. Eldridge. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 21, 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-122 COMMONWEALTH vs. MARK D. ELDRIDGE. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 A District Court jury convicted the defendant, Mark D. Eldridge, of assault and battery on a family or household member and assault by means of a dangerous weapon. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial judge erred in limiting his cross-examination of the victim and in excluding certain documents and the testimony of a U-Haul employee about the victim's demeanor in a telephone call. We affirm. Background. We summarize the facts, as the jury could have found them, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Tejada, 484 Mass. 1, 2, 4 (2020). On July 19, 2023, the victim and the defendant, who had been married for six years but were recently separated, agreed to meet at a U-Haul storage facility so that the victim could obtain her personal belongings. When the defendant arrived, he confronted the victim regarding the fact that her new boyfriend had accompanied her to the storage unit. The defendant said to the victim that she had three seconds "to get rid of that turd" before the defendant killed him. The defendant then walked back to his truck, opened a toolbox, and grabbed a hammer. He charged at the victim and pinned her against the passenger door of her car. The defendant then smashed the windshield, the passenger window, and the car door with the hammer and struck the victim's nose with the hammer, grabbed her arm, and pushed her against the car. When police officers arrived, the victim's face and arms were covered in blood. The defendant told the police officers that the victim had attacked him and when police asked the defendant how the victim was injured, he responded that the victim "probably hit herself." At trial, the defendant was the sole witness for the defense, presenting a theory of self-defense. He claimed that the victim and her new boyfriend had arrived at the storage unit as part of a preconceived plan to attack him. The defendant testified that the victim had punched him in the face and chest, kicked him, and spat at him. The defendant testified that he was afraid of the victim's boyfriend, who had threatened to kill him, so he picked up a hammer from his toolbox to defend 2 himself. Finally, the defendant denied hitting the victim but admitted that he had smashed the windshield of the victim's car to prevent her from driving away. Discussion. 1. Cross examination of witness. The defendant claims that the judge erred by not allowing him to cross-examine the victim about an allegation that the defendant had made in an application for a criminal complaint. In that application, the defendant alleged that the victim had threatened the defendant that if he did not meet her financial demands in the divorce proceedin