Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed Jose Benevides's conviction for indecent assault and battery under G. L. c. 265, § 13H. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that the victim consented only to touchings necessary and appropriate to applying her tattoo, not to the defendant's alleged touching of her pubic area and inner thigh. The court also concluded that the Commonwealth was not required to prove withdrawal of consent where the victim had not initially consented to the sexual contact.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent to the defendant's touching of her pubic area and inner thigh.
- Whether the Commonwealth was required to prove that the victim expressly withdrew consent before the alleged indecent touchings.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim consented only to touchings necessary and appropriate to applying the tattoo, not to the defendant's touching of her pubic area or inner thigh, particularly in a sexualized manner.
- The Commonwealth did not have to prove that the victim withdrew consent before the touchings because the jury could find that she never consented initially to touchings unnecessary to the tattoo procedure.
- The judge properly denied the defendant's motions for a required finding of not guilty because the evidence, viewed in the Commonwealth's favor, permitted a rational jury to find every element of indecent assault and battery beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key quotations
“The victim did not consent to touchings of her body that were unnecessary or inappropriate for the agreed-upon tattoo procedure.” (8-9)
“On this basis alone, the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent to the touching of her pubic area and inner thigh.” (9)
Factual background
The victim hired the defendant, who had previously tattooed her, to apply a tattoo to the front and outer portion of her right thigh. During the appointment, the defendant placed his fingers on her pubic area and later shoved his hand between her thighs and sexually rubbed her inner thigh after she declined his suggestion to extend the tattoo services into something sexual. The victim repeatedly stated that she wanted only the tattoo, said no, attempted to leave, and reported the incident to police four days later.
Procedural history
A complaint was sworn to in the Leominster Division of the District Court Department on October 18, 2023. Following a jury trial before Christopher P. LoConto, J., the defendant was convicted of indecent assault and battery. The trial judge denied the defendant's motion for a required finding at the close of the Commonwealth's case and again after the defense rested. The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed.