## Facts

- The defendant and the victim had a prior romantic relationship that had ended.
- Over roughly ten months, the defendant sent the victim more than forty letters.
- The letters contained obscene and threatening content, including vulgar sexual language and threats against the victim’s safety.
- The defendant repeatedly followed the victim and appeared at her workplace.
- The defendant made unfounded accusations to the victim’s employers, including allegations of drug use.
- The victim experienced work-related difficulties and took steps to avoid the defendant, including changing residences and phone numbers.
- The Commonwealth charged the defendant under G. L. c. 265, § 43 (1992) (stalking), requiring proof of repeated following or harassment plus a threat made with intent to place the victim in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury.
- A six-person jury convicted the defendant; the trial judge denied the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made a “threat” with the intent to place the victim in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury, as required by G. L. c. 265, § 43 (1992).
2. Whether the conviction had to be reversed because a later decision declared the original version of G. L. c. 265, § 43 unconstitutional, where the defendant did not challenge the statute’s constitutionality at trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find the statutory elements, including intent to place the victim in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury.
- The court declined to apply the later constitutional ruling retroactively to this conviction because the defendant did not raise the constitutional issue at trial and the statute provided fair notice that the proved conduct was prohibited.

## Legal Principles

- In reviewing denial of a required finding of not guilty, the question is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, a rational jury could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Under G. L. c. 265, § 43 (1992), the Commonwealth had to prove repeated following or harassment and a threat made with intent to place the victim in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury.
- A “threat” and intent may be inferred from the defendant’s course of conduct and communications, including the cumulative effect of repeated obscene and threatening letters and repeated in-person harassment.
- A defendant who does not challenge a statute’s constitutionality at trial generally may not obtain reversal based on a later decision invalidating the statute, absent a showing that affirmance creates a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice or violates due process.
- Where the statute gave fair notice that the defendant’s proved conduct was prohibited, affirming the conviction does not offend due process notwithstanding later constitutional invalidation of the statute.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the stalking conviction because the evidence supported findings of threatening harassment intended to place the victim in imminent fear of serious harm, and the defendant could not obtain retroactive relief from a later constitutional ruling where he failed to raise the issue at trial and the statute provided fair notice as applied to his conduct.


Commonwealth v. Matsos, 421 Mass. 391, 657 N.E.2d 467 (1995)