Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, §13M)

The Statute: M.G.L. c. 265, § 13M

Assault and battery on a family or household member is a distinct criminal offense under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265, Section 13M. It carries enhanced penalties and collateral consequences that do not apply to simple assault and battery under M.G.L. c. 265, § 13A. The statute applies when the defendant committed an intentional, unconsented touching of a person who qualifies as a family or household member under M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1.

Who the client is shapes the defense. For a college or university student, a licensed professional, or a non-citizen, the disposition can matter more than the penalty.

Keeping a charge off a client’s record often means fighting for a dismissal. Our page explains how a Massachusetts criminal case can be dismissed.

To secure a conviction, the Commonwealth must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

• First: the defendant touched the alleged victim. The touching does not need to cause injury. A push, a grab of the wrist, or contact with an object thrown in anger satisfies this element if the contact was intentional and unconsented.
• Second: the defendant intended to commit the act. Accidental contact does not satisfy the intent element.
• Third: the alleged victim was a family or household member within the meaning of M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1 at the time of the incident.

Who Qualifies as a Family or Household Member

The definition under Section 13M incorporates M.G.L. c. 209A, § 1. the same definition that governs 209A abuse prevention orders. The following relationships qualify:

• Current or former spouses.
• Persons who share a child in common, regardless of whether they were ever married or cohabitated.
• Persons who currently cohabitate or who have cohabitated in the past.
• Persons related by blood or marriage, including siblings, parents, and in-laws.
• Persons in or formerly in a substantive dating or engagement relationship. Courts evaluate the length, type, and frequency of the relationship.

Penalties

A first offense under M.G.L. c. 265, § 13M is a misdemeanor punishable by up to two and one-half years in a house of correction and a fine of up to $5,000. A conviction and many CWOF dispositions typically require completion of a certified Intimate Partner Abuse Education Program (IPAEP).

A second or subsequent offense is a felony punishable by up to five years in state prison. Any prior conviction for abuse of a family or household member under Massachusetts or federal law, including M.G.L. c. 265, §§ 13A, 13M, 13K, or 15D, can trigger the enhanced penalty. See: Domestic Violence Sentencing Enhancements.

Collateral Consequences

Firearms and License to Carry. At arraignment, the court can order surrender of all firearms, ammunition, and the defendant’s License to Carry (LTC) under M.G.L. c. 209A, § 3B. A conviction triggers the federal Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)), prohibiting possession of firearms. A CWOF on a domestic violence charge is treated as a conviction under federal law and triggers the same permanent firearms disability. See Firearms After a Massachusetts Domestic Violence Charge or 209A Order.

209A Restraining Order. A civil 209A abuse prevention order is issued as a condition of release at arraignment in virtually every domestic violence case. Violation of the order is a separate criminal offense under M.G.L. c. 209A, § 7.

CORI and Professional Licensing. A conviction or CWOF creates a CORI entry visible to most employers, licensing boards, and background check services. Arraignment triggers mandatory self-reporting obligations to most licensing boards before the case is resolved. A CWOF is treated as a conviction by most Massachusetts licensing boards. See: Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals.

Immigration Consequences. A conviction or CWOF under M.G.L. c. 265, § 13M qualifies as a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) and renders a non-citizen deportable. See: Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges.

DCF and Child Custody. If a child was present in the home during the alleged incident, police are mandated reporters who will file a 51A report with the Department of Children and Families. A DCF investigation runs parallel to the criminal case and can affect custody and visitation independently of the criminal outcome. See DCF 51A Investigations After a Domestic Violence Arrest for how the DCF investigation and the criminal case interact.

The Six-Hour Hold (M.G.L. c. 276, § 42A)

A person arrested for a domestic violence offense cannot be released on bail from the police station for at least six hours after arrest under M.G.L. c. 276, § 42A. This holding period does not apply to persons arrested for non-domestic offenses.

The Dangerousness Hearing (M.G.L. c. 276, § 58A)

In domestic violence cases involving allegations of serious physical harm, the prosecution may move at arraignment for a dangerousness hearing under M.G.L. c. 276, § 58A. A judge may order the defendant held without bail for up to 120 days upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of the community or the complainant. Audio from phones and home cameras now appears in these prosecutions regularly; the rules that govern it are collected on our page on Massachusetts wiretap law and secret recordings.

At a dangerousness hearing, the judge must allow the prosecution to present hearsay evidence. The defendant cannot compel the complainant to testify without a summons. Defense counsel must present evidence that specific conditions of release, including GPS monitoring, stay-away orders, or electronic monitoring, can protect the complainant adequately.

The No-Drop Policy

Every Massachusetts District Attorney’s Office maintains a policy against voluntarily dismissing domestic violence charges because the complainant requests it. Once police make an arrest, the case belongs to the Commonwealth. The prosecution proceeds on police observations, 911 recordings, body camera footage, medical records, and photographic evidence regardless of whether the alleged victim cooperates.

Trial-Date Dismissal Through Marital Privilege

The most common resolution in Massachusetts domestic violence cases is a dismissal at the scheduled trial date when the complainant does not appear or refuses to testify. Under M.G.L. c. 233, § 20, a legally married spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other spouse in a criminal proceeding when the spouse invokes the marital privilege. When the Commonwealth’s only eyewitness invokes the privilege and no other admissible evidence is sufficient to proceed, the case is dismissed. See: Massachusetts Domestic Violence FAQs.

Unmarried complainants may separately invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if truthful testimony would expose them to criminal liability. as when both parties were physically engaged during the incident.

Excited Utterances and Hearsay

When a complainant does not appear at trial, the Commonwealth frequently moves to introduce out-of-court statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, Massachusetts Guide to Evidence § 803(2). An excited utterance is a statement made while the declarant is still under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event, before there has been time for reflection. In domestic violence cases, the 911 call and statements made to the first responding officer at the scene are the two most frequently offered excited utterances.

The foundation requirements for an excited utterance are: (1) a startling event occurred; (2) the statement was made while the declarant was still under the stress of that event; and (3) the statement relates to the startling event.

Defense counsel challenges each element through motions in limine before trial. A complainant who spoke calmly to police thirty minutes after the incident, in a separate room, while the defendant was detained outside, may no longer have been under the requisite stress when that statement was made. Statements made in response to structured police questioning also weigh against the spontaneity the exception requires. When the excited utterance foundation fails and the statement is excluded, the Commonwealth may have no admissible evidence sufficient to proceed. See: Excited Utterances, Forfeiture by Wrongdoing, and the Confrontation Clause in Massachusetts Domestic Violence Cases.

The Confrontation Clause: Crawford and Davis

Under Crawford v. Washington (541 U.S. 36, 2004), the Confrontation Clause bars the admission of testimonial hearsay unless the declarant testifies or is unavailable through no fault of the defendant. Whether a statement is testimonial turns on the primary purpose test established in Davis v. Washington (547 U.S. 813, 2006): statements made to summon emergency assistance are non-testimonial; statements made to document facts for a potential prosecution are testimonial. The 911 call made during an ongoing emergency is generally non-testimonial. The follow-up interview conducted after the defendant has been removed and the emergency has ended is generally testimonial.

Forfeiture by Wrongdoing

A defendant who contacts or influences the complainant not to testify forfeits the Confrontation Clause right under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, recognized by the Supreme Court in Giles v. California (554 U.S. 353, 2008) and adopted in Massachusetts. When the Commonwealth proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the complainant from testifying, the court may admit the complainant’s prior out-of-court statements as substantive evidence without live testimony.

Contact with the complainant after arraignment in violation of the 209A order does not help the defense. It gives the Commonwealth an independent basis to introduce prior statements, eliminates the marital privilege argument, and generates a separate witness intimidation charge under M.G.L. c. 268, § 13B, a felony conviction that can never be sealed or expunged. All contact with the complainant after arraignment must go through counsel.

The CWOF

A Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF) under M.G.L. c. 278, § 18 is available in some domestic violence cases. A CWOF requires an admission to sufficient facts and typically includes mandatory completion of a 40-week Batterer’s Intervention Program. It is not a conviction under Massachusetts law. However, a CWOF on a domestic violence charge is treated as a conviction for:

• Federal immigration purposes under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A). See: Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges.
• The federal Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)), permanently prohibiting firearm possession.
• Most Massachusetts professional licensing boards. See: Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals.
• FINRA Form U4 disclosure obligations for registered securities professionals.
• Future OUI sentencing calculations in Massachusetts.

A CWOF should not be accepted without a full assessment of its collateral consequences for the specific defendant. See: CWOF, Pretrial Probation, and Diversion in Massachusetts FAQs.

Defense

Self-Defense in Massachusetts Assault and Domestic Violence Cases

Because household cases so often turn on who was the aggressor, self-defense and the complainant’s prior violence are central defenses. Under Massachusetts law, once the evidence raises self-defense, the burden shifts entirely to the Commonwealth: the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 370 Mass. 684 (1976). For non-deadly force, the questions are whether the defendant reasonably believed they were in imminent danger of bodily harm, whether the force used was no greater than reasonably necessary, and whether the defendant used available means to avoid physical combat. Domestic incidents are frequently mutual, chaotic, and unwitnessed, and the person arrested is often simply the person the responding officers concluded was the aggressor in the first minutes on scene. Where the identity of the first aggressor is in dispute, Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 649 (2005), permits the defense to introduce evidence of the complainant’s prior violent conduct, even acts unknown to the defendant at the time, to show that the complainant, not the defendant, initiated the violence. Defensive injuries, the complainant’s own admissions on the 911 recording, and the physical evidence at the scene frequently support a self-defense account that the police report never considered.

Other Defenses

Absence of intent. If contact occurred accidentally, the intent element is absent. Accidental contact is not assault and battery.

Lack of corroborating evidence. A complainant who alleges significant physical violence but presents no visible injury and whose account is inconsistent with the physical evidence raises credibility questions the defense can develop at trial.

Motive to fabricate. Domestic violence charges are sometimes brought in the context of contested divorce, child custody disputes, or relationship dissolution. Prior communications between the parties, text messages, and documented inconsistencies in the complainant’s account are available for cross-examination and jury argument.

Challenging the excited utterance foundation. When the Commonwealth seeks to introduce the 911 call or on-scene statements as excited utterances, defense counsel files motions in limine challenging the timing, the complainant’s demeanor, and whether the statements were made in response to structured police questioning rather than spontaneously.

Courts

These cases are prosecuted in the District Court or Boston Municipal Court with jurisdiction over the location of the alleged offense:

• Boston Municipal Court (BMC). Central, Brighton, Charlestown, Dorchester, East Boston, Roxbury, South Boston, and West Roxbury. Suffolk County DA.
• Quincy District Court. Norfolk County DA.
• Dedham District Court. Norfolk County DA. Serves Dedham, Dover, Medfield, Needham, Norwood, Wellesley, and Westwood.
• Cambridge District Court. Middlesex County DA.
• Somerville District Court. Middlesex County DA.
• Woburn District Court. Middlesex County DA.
• Waltham District Court. Middlesex County DA.
• Newton District Court. Norfolk County DA.
• Brookline District Court. Norfolk County DA.

Related Pages

• Boston Domestic Violence Defense Lawyer. Practice Area Hub
• Strangulation or Suffocation (M.G.L. c. 265, § 15D)
• Intimidation of a Witness (M.G.L. c. 268, § 13B)
• Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (M.G.L. c. 265, § 15A)
• Simple Assault and Assault and Battery in Domestic Violence Cases
• Threats to Commit a Crime (M.G.L. c. 275, § 2)
• Malicious Destruction of Property (M.G.L. c. 266, § 127)
• Domestic Violence Sentencing Enhancements
• Violation of a 209A Abuse Prevention Order (M.G.L. c. 209A, § 7)
• Massachusetts 209A Abuse Prevention Orders
• Massachusetts 258E Harassment Prevention Orders
• Arraignment in the Massachusetts Trial Court
• CWOF, Pretrial Probation, and Diversion in Massachusetts FAQs
• Massachusetts Domestic Violence FAQs
• Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals in Massachusetts
• Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges
• Massachusetts CORI Sealing and Expungement
• Excited Utterances, Forfeiture by Wrongdoing, and the Confrontation Clause
• Representative Trial Results
• Violation of a 209A Abuse Prevention Order (M.G.L. c. 209A, § 7)
• Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (M.G.L. c. 265, § 15A)
• Simple Assault and Battery in Massachusetts Domestic Violence Cases
• Massachusetts Domestic Violence Sentencing Enhancements
• Self-Defense
• Excited Utterances, Forfeiture by Wrongdoing, and the Confrontation Clause
• How Massachusetts Domestic Violence Charges Are Prosecuted and Resolved in 2026

Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a confidential consultation. Boston office: 20 Park Plaza #400A. Quincy office: 500 Victory Rd., Suite 400A. Available 24 hours a day.