Assault and Battery on a Police Officer or Public Employee in Massachusetts Under G.L. c. 265, § 13D

A person charged with assault and battery on a police officer in Massachusetts faces a charge under G.L. c. 265, § 13D. If the defendant is convicted, the possible penalties are ninety days to two and one-half years in the house of correction, a fine of $500 to $5,000, or both. The same statute covers any other public employee who is performing official duties.

The basic § 13D offense is a misdemeanor. Under G.L. c. 274, § 1, a crime is a felony only when the statute provides for a state prison sentence. For the basic offense, § 13D provides only for a house of correction sentence. Two versions of the charge, however, are felonies. The first is an assault and battery that causes serious bodily injury to a police officer. The second is an assault and battery that includes an attempt to take an officer’s weapon.

The charge often appears on the same complaint as disorderly conduct or resisting arrest. The police usually bring the charge after an arrest in which they say the person struck, kicked, pushed, or spat on an officer. This page explains what the Commonwealth must prove, the felony versions of the charge, the March 3, 2026 amendment, the defenses, and the ways these cases end.

What the Commonwealth Must Prove Under § 13D

The Commonwealth must first prove every element of an assault and battery. The touching can be a harmful battery, an offensive battery without consent, or a reckless battery that causes physical injury. The site’s page on assault and battery under § 13A explains those three forms.

Section 13D then requires two more elements. The alleged victim must have been a public employee engaged in the performance of official duties at the time of the assault and battery. The defendant must also have known that the alleged victim was a police officer or other public employee engaged in those duties. Commonwealth v. Colon, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 8, 22 (2011). Commonwealth v. Moore, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 455, 461 (1994).

Section 13D applies only to an assault and battery. When the police allege a threat or an attempted battery on an officer without any touching, the charge is an assault under G.L. c. 265, § 13A.

The Officer’s Duties and the Defendant’s Knowledge

An officer who acts unlawfully can still be engaged in the performance of official duties. In Commonwealth v. Tyson, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 739 (2024), an officer unlawfully opened the door of the defendant’s car. The Appeals Court held that the complaint application still showed probable cause that the officer was performing official duties, because the officer’s conduct was not an egregious abuse of authority. The Appeals Court therefore reinstated the § 13D charge.

The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew the alleged victim was a police officer performing official duties. The Commonwealth ordinarily relies on a uniform, a badge, a marked cruiser, or the officer’s spoken identification as a police officer. In some cases, an officer in plain clothes grabs a person from behind or in the dark. The defense can then argue that the person did not know the officer was a police officer.

Penalties for a § 13D Conviction

The basic offense is a misdemeanor. If a defendant is convicted of the basic offense, the judge may impose ninety days to two and one-half years in the house of correction. The judge may instead impose a fine of $500 to $5,000, or impose both a fine and a jail sentence. Commonwealth v. Beal, 474 Mass. 341 (2016).

Section 13D prohibits a continuance without a finding, a filing, and a suspended sentence only for the serious bodily injury version described below. For the basic offense, the statute contains no such prohibition. The site’s page on continuances without a finding and pretrial probation explains those dispositions.

The March 3, 2026 Amendment

The Legislature amended § 13D effective March 3, 2026. The amended statute expressly covers assault and battery by means of a bodily substance. Section 13D defines a bodily substance as any human secretion, discharge, or emission, including blood, saliva, mucus, semen, urine, or feces.

The amended statute also covers public transit workers and transit workers employed or contracted to operate public transit services. An officer may arrest a person without a warrant, on probable cause, for a § 13D offense against a public employee who was operating a public transit vehicle.

Serious Bodily Injury to a Police Officer

Section 13D punishes more severely an assault and battery on a police officer that causes serious bodily injury to the officer. Section 13D defines serious bodily injury as a bodily injury that has one of three results. The injury must cause a permanent disfigurement, a protracted loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb, or organ, or a substantial risk of death.

If a defendant is convicted of that version, the judge must impose at least one year of imprisonment. The judge may impose up to ten years in state prison or up to two and one-half years in the house of correction. The judge may also impose a fine of $500 to $10,000, but not in place of the one-year minimum.

The judge cannot continue the serious bodily injury charge without a finding or place the charge on file. The judge also cannot suspend or reduce the sentence. The defendant is not eligible for probation, parole, work release, furlough, or good conduct deductions until the defendant has served the one-year minimum.

Attempting to Disarm a Police Officer

Section 13D also punishes an assault and battery on a police officer that includes an attempt to take the officer’s weapon. If a defendant is convicted of that version, the judge may impose up to ten years in state prison. The judge may instead impose a fine of up to $1,000 and up to two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction. Because the statute provides for a state prison sentence, the serious bodily injury version and the attempted disarming version are felonies.

Self-Defense Against Excessive Force

A person may not use force to resist an arrest by someone the person knows, or has good reason to believe, is a police officer performing official duties. That rule applies even when the arrest itself is unlawful. Commonwealth v. Moreira, 388 Mass. 596, 601 (1983). The same rule applies to an unlawful entry by the police. Tyson, 104 Mass. App. Ct. 739.

When an officer uses excessive or unnecessary force, however, the person being arrested may use the force that reasonably appears necessary to defend against the officer’s force. Moreira, 388 Mass. at 601. The person must stop using force once the person knows, or reasonably should know, that the officer will stop if the person stops. The jury decides whether the officer’s force was excessive and whether the defendant’s response was reasonable. The site’s page on self-defense in Massachusetts explains the general rules.

Other Defenses to a § 13D Charge

In many § 13D cases, the officers’ reports describe a struggle that lasted only seconds. The defense examines the reports of every officer present against the body-worn camera footage, the cruiser video, the booking video, the dispatch recordings, and any use-of-force report. The defense uses differences among those records to show that the defendant never struck anyone, or that a contact was accidental.

An accidental contact is not an intentional battery. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant intended the touching, not merely that the defendant pulled an arm away, stumbled, or fell against an officer. When the Commonwealth’s evidence is insufficient to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge must enter a required finding of not guilty on the defendant’s motion.

Related Charges: Resisting Arrest and Disorderly Conduct

Prosecutors often charge § 13D together with resisting arrest under G.L. c. 268, § 32B and disorderly conduct under G.L. c. 272, § 53. Resisting arrest requires proof of different elements. In Tyson, the Appeals Court reinstated the § 13D charge but upheld the dismissal of the resisting arrest charge. The defendant’s alleged attempt to pull away before the officer handcuffed him did not involve the force or the risk of injury that the resisting arrest statute requires. The site’s page on disorderly conduct and resisting arrest covers those two charges.

Resolving a § 13D Case

A § 13D case can end with a dismissal, a nolle prosequi, a not guilty verdict, or a required finding of not guilty. The site’s page on how criminal cases get dismissed explains the motions that can end a case before trial. For the basic offense, a judge may also continue the case without a finding or place the defendant on pretrial probation under G.L. c. 276, § 87.

Accord and satisfaction under G.L. c. 276, § 55 is not available when the alleged victim is a police officer. Section 55 excludes an offense committed on a sheriff or other officer of justice.

Records, Firearms Licenses, and Immigration

A person convicted of the basic § 13D offense, a misdemeanor, may petition to seal the record three years after the case ended, under G.L. c. 276, § 100A. A person convicted of the serious bodily injury version or the attempted disarming version, both felonies, must wait seven years. A case that ended without a conviction can be sealed under different rules. The site’s page on sealing a Massachusetts criminal record explains both.

The maximum house of correction sentence for the basic § 13D offense is two and one-half years. Under G.L. c. 140, § 121F, a person convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years is a prohibited person for a license to carry. A person convicted of the basic § 13D offense therefore cannot hold a license to carry. For a firearm identification card, that prohibition lasts five years after the conviction or the end of the sentence, whichever is later. A felony conviction under § 13D is a permanent bar.

The site’s page on a criminal record and a firearms license application covers those questions.

A person who is not a United States citizen should speak with an immigration lawyer before resolving a § 13D charge. A conviction or a continuance without a finding is the usual risk. An immigration officer may also ask about the arrest or about the conduct the officers described in their reports. An immigration lawyer should review the exact question, the person’s status, and the court record before the person files an application or attends an interview. The site’s immigration consequences pages explain the federal rules.

Representation in § 13D Cases

Attorney Joe Serpa represents people charged with assault and battery on a police officer or public employee in the district courts and the Boston Municipal Court. He reviews the video and every officer’s report before advising a client whether to try the case or resolve it. Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a confidential consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

• Assault and Battery Charges in Massachusetts Under G.L. c. 265, § 13A
• Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest in Massachusetts
• Self-Defense in Massachusetts
• Assault With a Dangerous Weapon and Assault and Battery With a Dangerous Weapon in Massachusetts
• How Criminal Cases Get Dismissed in the Massachusetts District and Municipal Courts
• Sealing and Expunging a Massachusetts Criminal Record