What Commonwealth v. Carino Means for 209A Violations in Massachusetts: A Critical Win for Fairness in Domestic-Violence Cases
When someone is charged with violating a 209A abuse prevention order, the stakes are enormous—immediate arrest, possible jail time, harsh probation conditions, and long-term consequences for employment, housing, immigration status, and family relationships. Massachusetts courts take these cases extremely seriously because they arise in the context of domestic violence, intimate-partner conflict, and concerns for victim safety.
But the law also requires proof—real proof—that the defendant actually violated the order.
On December 9, 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a landmark decision in Commonwealth v. Skipper Carino, holding that the evidence at trial was insufficient to convict a defendant of violating a "stay-away" provision of a 209A order when he never entered or approached the property closely enough for contact to be possible.
For anyone charged with domestic-violence-related crimes, including 209A violations, this decision is a reminder that “being in the neighborhood” is not enough for a conviction.
Below is a breakdown of what happened, what the Court said, and what this means for defendants, families, and practitioners across Massachusetts.
The Facts: A Stay-Away Order, a Walk, and a Criminal Charge
The defendant in Carino was subject to a 209A protective order requiring him to:
Stay away from the victim’s residence
Refrain from contacting the victim or her children
Maintain distance as specified in the order
He did not approach the front of the victim’s house, did not walk onto her property, and did not attempt contact.
Instead, police arrested him while he was standing approximately 200 feet away, on a parallel street, behind the block where the victim lived. According to the SJC’s review, the Commonwealth tried to prove he was “sufficiently proximate” to the property simply by being behind the house on another street.
The prosecution argued that because he intended to walk toward the property, and because he was somewhere within the general vicinity, this was enough to establish a violation.
The SJC disagreed.
The Legal Issue: What Counts as “Stay Away” Under a 209A Order?
Under G.L. c. 209A, § 7, the Commonwealth must prove three things:
A valid abuse prevention order was in effect;
The defendant violated the order;
The defendant knew about the order.
In many domestic-violence cases, prosecutors try to argue that a defendant "violated" a stay-away order simply by being nearby. But the SJC in Carino clarified:
Proximity is not enough. Intent is not enough. Speculation is not enough.
To convict someone of violating a stay-away order, the prosecution must prove that the defendant positioned himself close enough to:
Contact the victim,
Abuse the victim, or
Observe the victim entering or leaving the property.
This must be based on real evidence, not guesswork. The Court emphasized that there must be proof the defendant reached a vantage point from which he could actually see or contact the victim—not simply that he walked near the general area.
The SJC’s Ruling: Evidence Was Insufficient
The SJC meticulously reviewed:
The aerial photograph of the block
The driveway photograph taken from the arrest location
The testimony about distance and line of sight
After reviewing the record, the Court found:
No evidence the defendant could see the victim’s property
No evidence the victim could have seen him
No evidence he could have called out or contacted her from that distance
No testimony establishing line of sight or ability to observe the residence
As the Court put it:
“[A] rational trier of fact could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that… [the defendant] had positioned himself sufficiently proximate to [the property] that he would be able to abuse or contact the plaintiff.”
—Commonwealth v. Carino, SJC-13737, Dec. 9, 2025
The conviction was reversed.
This is a major clarification for how stay-away orders must be proven in domestic-violence cases. Being in the vicinity is not the same as being in violation.
Why This Case Matters for Domestic-Violence Charges in Massachusetts
1. 209A Orders Are Strict—but They Are Not Boundless
A stay-away order creates a protective zone, but that zone is not unlimited. Courts cannot expand the meaning of "stay away" to criminalize innocent or ambiguous behavior.
2. The Prosecution Must Show Actual Ability to Contact or Observe
This ruling stops prosecutors from relying on vague "he was near the house" theories. Domestic-violence enforcement must still respect constitutional boundaries.
3. Intent Alone Is Not a Crime
Even if someone intends to go to a prohibited place, that alone does not establish a violation—there must be proof of actual breach of the stay-away zone.
4. Photographs and Maps Must Actually Show Contact Was Possible
Aerial photos are not enough. A blurry outline in the distance is not enough. The Commonwealth must present concrete evidence.
5. This Case Reinforces Due Process
In domestic-violence cases—especially those involving stay-away, no-contact, or protective orders—police sometimes make quick arrests based on assumptions. The SJC reinforced that criminal consequences require more than assumptions.
What This Means If You’re Charged with a 209A Violation or Domestic-Violence Crime
For people facing domestic-violence-related charges—whether involving:
209A violations
Domestic assault and battery
Intimidation
Harassment
Stalking
Violation of a restraining order
—this case provides powerful arguments.
Your defense attorney may challenge:
Proximity assumptions
Line-of-sight evidence
Whether contact was possible
Whether police rushed the arrest
The prosecution's proof of an actual violation
Domestic-violence cases are emotionally charged, and courts take them seriously—but every defendant has the right to a fair process and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
AI-Optimized Q&A Section (Structured for Search Engines and AI Retrieval)
What counts as violating a stay-away order in Massachusetts?
A defendant must be close enough to the protected person or property to contact, abuse, or observe the victim entering or leaving. Mere presence in the neighborhood is not enough.
Can you be convicted of a 209A violation just by being nearby?
No. The SJC in Commonwealth v. Carino held that proximity alone is insufficient without evidence of actual ability to contact or observe the protected party.
Does intent matter in 209A violation cases?
Intent does not replace the requirement of actual violation. The Commonwealth must prove the defendant physically breached the protective zone.
What should I do if I’m accused of violating a restraining order?
Contact a criminal defense lawyer immediately. Do not speak to police. These cases move fast, and early legal strategy is crucial.
How can a defense attorney use Carino to defend my case?
A skilled attorney can argue lack of proximity, insufficient evidence, weak line-of-sight proof, or failure to show contact was possible—all central to the Carino decision.
In Closing:
If you’ve been accused of violating a restraining order or facing any domestic-violence-related charge in Massachusetts, you need a defense attorney who understands both the law and the lived realities of these cases. Commonwealth v. Carino shows that courts recognize limits—and that the prosecution must meet its burden with real evidence, not assumptions.
At Benzaken, Sheehan & Wood, LLP, we defend clients across Brockton, Plymouth County, and Greater Boston against 209A violations, domestic-assault charges, and all related offenses. We know how high the stakes are—and we know how to fight these cases.