Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D is a seventeen-year-old high school student accused of having sexually assaulted a fifteen-year-old schoolmate. P is the mother of the young woman who was allegedly abused ('daughter'). P filed a complaint and supporting affidavit on behalf of her daughter and obtained an ex parte abuse prevention order against the D pursuant to G. L. c. 209A, § 4. P alleged that D offered to drive the daughter home from school and, along the way, stopped at his house, invited the young woman inside, and then forcibly sexually assaulted her in his bedroom. D contests the occurrence of the incident. One day after an ex parte emergency temporary abuse prevention order was issued, see G. L. c. 209A, § 4, D was arrested on charges arising from the alleged assault. D was arraigned on these charges and subsequently released on bail. He was suspended from high school as a result of the arrest. The judge extended the abuse prevention order for a period of one year. D timely appealed the issuance of the order and shortly thereafter filed a motion to suspend the order pending appeal. The judge denied D's motion to suspend the abuse prevention order pending appeal, and D timely appealed the denial of that motion as well. The district attorney's office entered a nolle prosequi on all pending charges related to the alleged sexual assault, and D immediately filed a motion to modify the abuse prevention order and requested an evidentiary hearing on his earlier motion to vacate. The judge denied D's motion to modify, and D once again timely appealed. D maintains that P failed to show the existence of a 'substantive dating relationship' and consequently, the abuse prevention order against him was improperly issued and extended.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co