- Steven Topazio wrote this October 15, 2018 at 9:33 pm
The client was arrested for threats and for a violation of an abuse prevention order in violation of MGL c. 209A § 7. It was alleged that the client, who was estranged from his wife, violated the restraining order when the wife saw a missed call on her cell phone allegedly from the client and then alleged that the client contacted the wife’s sister and allegedly threatened to commit a crime against his wife. Today at trial the wife could only testify that the missed call on her cellphone had her husband’s name on the screen but could not testify as what the telephone number was associated with the name. Attorney Topazio objected to the introduction of this type of evidence arguing that without the telephone number such evidence would be insufficient authentication to admit testimony that it was her ex-husband’s telephone number that called her cellphone. The court granted Attorney Topazio’s motion for a required finding for not guilty after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth.