Peter’s common law wife had obtained an order for protection against Peter, but roughly one year after she obtained the protection order, Peter attacked and injured her. Peter was subsequently charged with violating the protection order and with assault and battery. The Superior Court found him guilty of both counts. On appeal, Peter argued that the two one year prison sentences violated the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. and commonwealth Constitutions.
The double jeopardy clause provides, among other things, that a person cannot be punished multiple times for the same offense. Peter argued that the two consecutive prison sentences constituted multiple punishments for the same offense because the order for protection forbid him from assaulting or battering his wife.
The Supreme Court held that a defendant can be punished multiple times for the same conduct in a single court proceeding if the Legislature intended for a single course of conduct to result in multiple sanctions. The commonwealth’s Domestic Violence Act explicitly provides that if a person violates an order for protection through actual or threatened physical violence that the person can be subject to multiple and consecutive prison sentences.
The double jeopardy clause does not restrict the Legislature’s ability to enact statutes that punish defendant’s multiple times. Thus, the Superior Court’s order that sentenced Peter to two consecutive one year terms of imprisonment did not violate either the U.S. or commonwealth Constitutions.
Peter’s counsel had also argued during the proceedings that disturbing the peace is a lesser included offense of assault and battery. The Supreme Court, however, reaffirmed its decisions in previous cases, holding that assault and battery and disturbing the peace are separate and distinct offenses.
The Supreme Court’s full opinion is Commonwealth v. Peter, 2010 MP 15, and can be found at http://www.justice.gov.mp/.
