Commonwealth v. V.E. – Quincy District Court

NOONAN DEFENSE TEAM WINS NOT GUILTY VERDICT AGAINST DIRECT-CARE WORKER CHARGED WITH PHYSICALLY ASSAULTING AN INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED PERSON IN HIS CARE AT A GROUP HOME.

Defendant, a Quincy resident, and immigrant from Haiti with no criminal record, was employed as a Direct Care Worker at a Group Home for individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities. On October 27, 2017, a woman was stopped at a stop sign across the street from the Group Home. The woman called 911 to report that a young man (alleged victim) ran out the front door of the Group Home. She reported that a black male (defendant) grabbed the young man by the neck and dragged him into the house. A police officer arrived to the Group Home. The officer looked into the window of the front door and observed the Defendant with his hand grasped around the rear of the victim’s neck and pushed him up the stairs. The alleged victim suffered from various intellectual disabilities. As a result, the police officer arrested and charged the Defendant with Assault and Battery on a Disabled Person (G.L. c. 265, §13K), a felony offense carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years in State Prison, or 2 and ½ years in the House of Correction.

Result: Patrick J. Noonan, Brendan J. Noonan, and the Noonan Defense immediately conducted an investigation in preparation of trial. The Defense Team interviewed the woman who allegedly observed the assault on the victim. Although the woman reported to 911 that she observed the defendant grab the victim by neck, her statements to the defense were very different and exculpatory. The woman told the Defense Team that she did not see any physical contact between the Defendant and the Victim. At trial, the prosecution did not call the woman as a witness. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the police officer as to his observations of the alleged assault. The officer admitted that he made his observations through a “stained glass window,” making it difficult for him to make out precisely what was happening. The officer also admitted that he only observed the incident for approximately 1-2 seconds. The officer also admitted that he was unsure if the Defendant’s hand was grasped at the rear of the victim’s neck, or if the Defendant’s hand was placed on the victim’s upper back. The Noonan Defense Team introduced evidence that the Defendant was legally justified in using reasonable force to prevent the victim from injuring himself. Specifically, our team introduced evidence that the victim attempted to escape from the residence and run into the street but our client used reasonable force to prevent him from escaping and injuring himself. The victim had a history of eloping from the residence. The victim’s mother was concerned about the victim eloping and running into the busy street and injuring himself. The Group Home was located on a State Highway where vehicles drove by at speeds exceeding 50 MPH. The front door of the Group Home was very close to the State Highway. It was only 15-20 feet from the front door to the State Highway. There was no fencing to prevent the victim from running into the street. The victim had no safety awareness. The Lead Clinician from the Group Home testified that force may be necessary to prevent the victim from running into the busy street and injuring himself. The police officer testified that there had been major accidents and fatalities on this State Highway. Due to the victim’s history of elopement and the potential danger of him running into the street, the Group Home was supposed to implement door alarms but they never did. In addition, the Noonan Defense Team introduced evidence that the Defendant was legally justified in using reasonable force on the victim to prevent injury to another resident who also had disabilities. In particular, the victim had attacked this other resident several times on the date of this incident. The victim ran at the other resident, attacked the other resident, and physically struck the other resident. The other resident, a large man, was known to be volatile when agitated. The Group Home would not even attempt to restrain the other resident when he became agitated and their policy was to call 911 rather than attempt a restraint due to his size and capability of injuring others. Here, the Defendant acted reasonably in restraining the victim for the safety of the other resident who the victim had previously attacked. Finally, the Defense Team introduced evidence of the victim’s history of violent behavior. Prior to this incident, the victim was so violent that three staff employees were required to restrain him. During this incident, the Group Home was understaffed because two employees left the home to go grocery shopping, leaving the Defendant and one other employee as the only staff present to supervise all the residents in the home. After a two-day jury trial, the jury found the Defendant not guilty.