R.A. v. W.R. (2024)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, W.R., appeals from an order of a Boston Municipal Court judge extending a harassment prevention order for one year issued after notice and a hearing pursuant to G. L. c. 258E, § 3. We affirm.

The defendant “contends that the trial court erred in its acceptance of [the plaintiff's] claims without scrutinizing the veracity and motivations behind them.” Specifically, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff lied about the plaintiff's job title, falsely accused him of creating bombs,² inaccurately described him as stalking the plaintiff's residence, and was motivated by a desire to divert attention from the defendant's whistleblower claims. All of these claims, however, are supported only by the defendant's own testimony and a number of highly ambiguous exhibits.

“Our role as a reviewing court is not to reassess credibility determinations made by the hearing judge.” Constance C. v. Raymond R., 101 Mass. App. Ct. 390, 397 (2022). “We accord the credibility determinations of the judge who ‘heard the testimony of the parties ․ [and] observed their demeanor’ ․ the utmost deference.” Yahna Y. v. Sylvester S., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 184, 185 (2020), quoting Ginsberg v. Blacker, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 139, 140 n.3 (2006). We are in no position to second guess the judge's credibility determinations on a cold transcript without seeing the witnesses and how they testified. Accordingly, we cannot disturb the judge's order.

Order entered November 20, 2023, affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   As a matter of fact, the plaintiff testified that the defendant “made several allegations about pressure cooker bombs,” not that the plaintiff had manufactured any bombs.