The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is examining a protective order violation case that could reshape how courts interpret "stay away" provisions in abuse prevention orders. In Commonwealth v. Skipper Carino, the state's highest court granted further appellate review after the Appeals Court previously heard the case in 2024.
Skipper Carino was convicted by a jury of violating an abuse prevention order issued under General Laws Chapter 209A. The order required Carino to "stay away" from the victim's residence but did not specify a particular distance he must maintain. The case originated in Cambridge District Court in July 2022, where the complaint was received and sworn to on July 25, 2022.
The trial took place before Judge David E. Frank in the Cambridge Division of the District Court Department. Critically, the Commonwealth did not allege that Carino actually entered the victim's property. Instead, prosecutors sought to prove the violation through a proximity-based theory, arguing that Carino violated the stay away provision by "positioning himself sufficiently proximate to the property that he would be able to abuse or to contact the plaintiff, in the event that the plaintiff were on the property, or entering or leaving it."
This legal standard draws from the Massachusetts Appeals Court decision in Commonwealth v. Watson (2018), which established that defendants can violate protective orders without physically entering prohibited areas. The Watson standard focuses on whether the defendant positioned themselves close enough to potentially abuse or contact the protected person.
The case involves several complex legal issues that the Supreme Judicial Court will need to address. Court records indicate the case involves "abuse prevention," "protective order," "evidence, photograph," and "practice, criminal, motion for a required finding" as key legal topics. The photographic evidence component suggests that images may have played a role in demonstrating Carino's proximity to the protected property.
On appeal, Carino challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him. His attorney, Rachel Chunnha, is representing him before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Commonwealth is represented by Assistant District Attorney Dylan T. Punch, with Assistant District Attorney Madison Bush also participating in the case.
The Appeals Court previously reviewed the case and issued a decision reported at 104 Mass. App. Ct. 578 (2024). However, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review, indicating the case presents issues of significant legal importance that require resolution by the state's highest court.
The timing of the Supreme Judicial Court proceedings spans from September 5, 2025, to December 9, 2025, suggesting the court is giving careful consideration to the complex legal questions presented. The full panel of justices is involved, including Chief Justice Budd and Justices Gaziano, Kafker, Wendlandt, Georges, Dewar, and Wolohojian.
Justice Dewar authored the court's opinion in the case, though the specific holdings and reasoning have not been fully disclosed in the available court records. The case number SJC-13737 reflects its position in the Supreme Judicial Court's docket system.
The outcome of this case could have broad implications for how Massachusetts courts interpret protective orders and abuse prevention statutes. Many protective orders contain "stay away" provisions similar to the one in Carino's case, but they often lack specific distance requirements. The court's decision could provide crucial guidance for law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges in determining when such orders are violated.
The case also highlights the evolving nature of abuse prevention law in Massachusetts. Since the enactment of Chapter 209A, courts have grappled with balancing the need to protect victims of domestic violence with ensuring that defendants receive fair notice of what conduct is prohibited. The "stay away" language in many orders can be ambiguous, leading to disputes about what constitutes a violation.
For victims of domestic violence and their advocates, the case represents an important test of whether courts will maintain robust enforcement of protective orders even when the prohibited conduct falls short of physical entry onto protected property. Conversely, defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates may view the case as an opportunity to ensure that criminal liability for protective order violations requires clear and specific conduct.
The Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Skipper Carino will likely become a key precedent for protective order cases throughout Massachusetts. Trial courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys will closely watch how the justices balance the competing interests at stake in these cases that sit at the intersection of criminal law and domestic violence protection.