COMMONWEALTH v. GONYEA (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The defendant, Katie Gonyea, appeals from her conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon, to wit, syringe, pursuant to G. L. c. 265, § 15B (b). While hospitalized for suicidal ideations and mental health concerns, the defendant threw an uncapped syringe at a nurse while making violent threats toward the nurse and a hospital security guard. On appeal, she argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict because, in light of her condition, she lacked the mens rea to commit the crime and that she had no ability to effectuate her threats. We affirm.

Background. Under the familiar Latimore standard, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979). With a long history of mental health issues and admissions, the defendant presented herself to Salem Hospital two days prior to the assault as a result of suicidal ideations. The incident at issue began when a treating nurse noticed that the defendant had become increasingly agitated while in her hospital room. The defendant was repeatedly getting in and out of her bed while making threats directed at the nurse and an accompanying hospital security guard.² At one point the defendant obtained a syringe from a locked bedside cart, held it up to her neck, and threatened to harm herself. In response, the nurse and security guard attempted to approach her to de-escalate the situation.³ Instead, the defendant looked at the nurse and threw the uncapped needle at her.⁴ The needle missed striking the nurse but the defendant continued with her verbal threats, which the nurse took seriously. Eventually, the defendant was restrained yet she continued to be “very irate, out of control, very agitated.”

The defendant's bench trial took place on November 15, 2018 in the District Court. The Commonwealth presented testimony from the nurse, the security guard, and the arresting officer. The defendant offered expert testimony from a psychologist who performed a criminal responsibility evaluation of the defendant. The expert testified that the defendant informed her that she “woke up” from her psychotic episode when she heard the nurse yell “no,” and she threw the syringe not at the nurse but down because she thought the nurse was going to attack her. The judge credited the testimony of all four witnesses and found the defendant guilty. She timely appeals.

Discussion. On appeal, the defendant does not claim that an uncapped syringe cannot constitute a dangerous weapon for purposes of the statute. Instead, she argues that she lacked the requisite intent to commit the crime and that she had no ability to make good on her threats. The defendant did not move for a required finding of not guilty at trial. “However, findings based on legally insufficient evidence are inherently serious enough to create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.” Commonwealth v. McGovern, 397 Mass. 863, 867-868 (1986). Therefore, we “must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt” (quotations omitted). Commonwealth v. Teixeira, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 367, 369 (2019). “[T]he thrust of the offense of assault with a dangerous weapon ․ is the outward demonstration of force which breaches the peace.” Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 305 (1980).

We are not persuaded by the defendant's argument. “[A]ssault by means of a dangerous weapon requires only a general intent to commit a battery or to place the victim in reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery.” Commonwealth v. Bright, 463 Mass. 421, 445 (2012). Here, the defendant made angry and violent threats toward the nurse and security guard before and after throwing the syringe. A psychologist presented evidence that the defendant knew the syringe was in her hand and that she intended to throw it, albeit not at the nurse but down toward the floor. But the nurse's testimony, which was credited by the judge, was sufficient to show that she was fearful when the syringe was thrown and that she felt threatened by the needle, which landed at her feet, and by the defendant's statements. Such fear was eminently reasonable under the circumstances. Indeed, the defendant's own words -- she felt she was under attack by the nurse -- support the conclusion that she intended to, and did, throw the syringe at the nurse.⁵

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   The defendant threatened “by the time [she] got admitted upstairs, she was going to destroy the place [and that] she was going to meet [the nurse and security guard] in the parking lot and make sure [they] were taken care of.” The defendant also threatened the security guard by saying “she was going to break [his] f'ing neck.” She made “a lot of different threats along those lines.”

3.   The nurse testified that she was “standing at the foot of the room, I didn't go any further.”

4.   On cross-examination, the nurse testified that the throw was “just kind of a toss at me.” Though it eventually missed, while in the air, the nurse was afraid the syringe would strike her and penetrate her scrubs or her sneakers.

5.   The psychologist testified that “[the defendant] said that she, at that point, was holding the syringe and threw it immediately to the ground, as she believed she was about to be attacked.”