Expertise-com - Best Criminal Defense Attorneys in Boston - 2026 - Badge

Expertise-com - Best DUI Lawyers in Boston - 2026 - Badge

2024 - Top 3 - Criminal Defense Lawyers in Boston - Badge

Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon in Massachusetts Domestic Violence Cases (M.G.L. c. 265, § 15A)

Updated August 2026

Massachusetts assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, commonly called ABDW, is a felony under G.L. c. 265, § 15A. In a domestic violence case, prosecutors may charge ABDW when they allege that the defendant used a firearm, knife, vehicle, bottle, shoe, household object, or other item to make physical contact.

A defendant charged with ABDW may also face a charge under G.L. c. 265, § 13M, a proceeding for a 209A restraining order (abuse prevention order), and firearm or licensing consequences if the complainant is a family or household member.

The Commonwealth can prosecute ABDW under an intentional or reckless theory. A related felony, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, or ADW, does not require physical contact. The elements that the Commonwealth must prove and the defenses available to the defendant often depend on whether the Commonwealth charges ADW or ABDW.

Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon in a Domestic Violence Case

G.L. c. 265, § 15B(b) makes assault by means of a dangerous weapon a felony. The offense is punishable by up to five years in state prison, up to two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction, or a fine of up to $1,000.

ADW does not require a completed touching. The Commonwealth may prove the underlying assault in two ways, as an attempted battery or as an immediately threatened battery. Both theories require intentional conduct and proof that the defendant committed the assault by means of a dangerous weapon.

Under the attempted-battery theory, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant specifically intended to commit a battery, took an overt step toward committing the battery, came reasonably close to completing the battery, and made the attempt with a dangerous weapon. The complainant does not have to see the attempt or experience fear.

Under the immediately-threatened-battery theory, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant intended to place the complainant in fear of an immediate battery. The defendant must also have engaged in conduct the complainant reasonably perceived as an immediate threat and made the threat with a dangerous weapon.

The question whether the alleged threat was immediate and reasonably perceived can depend on words, distance, movement, the object’s appearance, and the surrounding circumstances.

Pointing what appears to be a firearm, raising a knife while close enough to strike, or driving a vehicle toward someone may support an ADW allegation even if no contact occurs. Evidence that a defendant pointed what appeared to be a firearm, raised a knife, or drove toward someone does not establish guilt by itself. The Commonwealth must prove the applicable assault theory and the dangerous-weapon element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15B(a) applies when the complainant is sixty or older. A first offense against a person sixty or older is punishable by the same maximum terms as the basic ADW offense. A defendant convicted of a second or subsequent qualifying offense faces additional sentencing restrictions. Defense counsel should review age, prior-conviction, and notice issues separately.

The Difference Between ADW and ABDW

The central difference between ADW and ABDW is physical contact. ADW under § 15B requires an attempted or immediately threatened battery with a dangerous weapon, but it does not require the weapon to touch the complainant. ABDW under § 15A requires an actual touching by means of a dangerous weapon.

ADW and ABDW also require different states of mind. ADW is an intentional assault. ABDW may rest on an intentional touching or on reckless conduct that causes bodily injury. The Commonwealth cannot obtain a conviction for reckless ABDW based on an accidental, noninjurious contact without proving the required conduct, risk, and injury.

The basic maximum penalties for ADW and ABDW also differ. ADW is punishable by up to five years in state prison, while basic ABDW is punishable by up to ten years. Aggravated ABDW under § 15A(c) is punishable by up to fifteen years. The offense that the Commonwealth can prove depends on the admissible evidence, not on the charge listed on the complaint.

In a domestic violence case, a defendant charged with either dangerous-weapon offense may also face a § 13M charge, a protective-order allegation, or a dangerousness motion. The defense should identify whether the prosecution claims an attempt, a threat, an intentional touching, or a reckless injury instead of treating ADW and ABDW as interchangeable labels.

The Penalties Under G.L. c. 265, § 15A

Under G.L. c. 265, § 15A(b), ABDW is punishable by up to ten years in state prison, up to two and one-half years in a house of correction, a fine of up to $5,000, or both a fine and imprisonment.

The offense is a felony because the statute authorizes a state-prison sentence. The Commonwealth may prosecute ABDW in the District Court, where the judge can impose only the available house-of-correction sentence, or by indictment in the Superior Court.

Section 15A(c) authorizes a maximum state-prison sentence of fifteen years and a maximum fine of $10,000 in four circumstances. The Commonwealth must prove the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.

The alleged battery caused serious bodily injury.
The complainant was pregnant, and the defendant knew or had reason to know of the pregnancy.
A qualifying restraining, vacate, or no-contact order protecting the complainant was in effect, and the defendant knew about it.
The defendant was at least eighteen and the complainant was under fourteen.

The statute specifically defines serious bodily injury. The definition requires permanent disfigurement, loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb, or organ, or a substantial risk of death. A painful injury, bruising, or medical treatment does not automatically satisfy the statutory definition.

Intentional ABDW

The Massachusetts Superior Court model jury instruction identifies four elements for intentional ABDW. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant touched the complainant, did so by means of a dangerous weapon, intended the touching, and acted without legal justification.

The touching may be direct or indirect. Striking someone with an object is a direct touching. Causing a person to come into contact with an object or surface can be an indirect touching. The prosecution must still establish that the battery occurred by means of the alleged weapon.

Intentional ABDW does not require proof of a serious injury. A slight touching can satisfy the battery element if the Commonwealth proves the remaining elements. Injury becomes a separate required element when the prosecution charges the serious-bodily-injury form under § 15A(c)(i).

Reckless ABDW

Reckless ABDW has different elements. The Commonwealth must prove intentional conduct involving a dangerous weapon, that the conduct was reckless, and that it caused bodily injury.

Recklessness requires more than ordinary negligence. The conduct must create a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result. The defendant must also know or reasonably should know of the risk.

The difference between intentional and reckless ABDW is relevant when the contact was unintended. An accidental touching is not intentional ABDW. The prosecution may nevertheless argue reckless ABDW if the defendant deliberately engaged in dangerous conduct and that conduct caused an injury.

Defense counsel should review the complaint, police report, and proposed jury instruction to determine which theory the Commonwealth is pursuing. A defense that addresses intent but ignores recklessness may leave a separate theory unanswered.

What Qualifies as a Dangerous Weapon

Some objects are dangerous by their nature because they are designed to cause death or serious injury. Firearms and certain knives can be dangerous by their nature.

An ordinary object may become dangerous because of the manner in which it was used. A bottle, vehicle, household item, piece of furniture, or shod foot may qualify as a dangerous weapon when the evidence shows use capable of causing serious bodily injury.

The question whether an object is a dangerous weapon does not depend on the name of the object. The judge or jury examines the object’s size, weight, condition, movement, point of contact, and force. The judge or jury also considers the surrounding circumstances and the way the prosecution claims the defendant used the object.

The jury ordinarily decides whether an object was dangerous as used. A judge may instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple assault and battery if the Commonwealth fails to prove the weapon element but proves the elements of that offense.

Domestic Violence Designation and Related Charges

Section 15A does not require a family or household relationship. The domestic designation is based on the alleged relationship and on any companion charge or order.

An alleged battery against a spouse, former spouse, co-parent, or person who is or was in a substantive dating or engagement relationship with the defendant may also be charged under § 13M. The Commonwealth can bring a separate charge of violating an active 209A restraining order if the alleged conduct violated an enforceable term of the order.

The prosecution must prove the elements of each count. The presence of a § 13M charge does not establish the dangerous-weapon element, and the presence of an object does not establish the qualifying relationship.

The firm’s Boston domestic violence defense guide explains the related criminal and civil proceedings.

The Six-Hour Bail Rule and Dangerousness Hearing

Under G.L. c. 276, § 42A, an adult arrested for conduct that would constitute abuse under Chapter 209A ordinarily may not be admitted to bail sooner than six hours after arrest. A judge in open court may order an earlier release.

The Commonwealth may also request a dangerousness hearing under G.L. c. 276, § 58A. ABDW is a qualifying felony for a dangerousness hearing. An allegation involving domestic abuse provides an additional statutory basis for the Commonwealth’s motion.

A dangerousness motion does not establish guilt or require detention. The judge must decide whether release conditions will reasonably assure the safety of another person or the community. Pretrial detention requires clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of another person or the community.

Self-Defense and Defense of Another

A defendant may use reasonable force to protect against an imminent use of unlawful force. In a case where the evidence raises self-defense, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no self-defense.

A defendant who used an object can still claim self-defense. The issue is whether the defendant reasonably believed force was necessary and whether the amount of force was proportionate to the danger as the defendant reasonably perceived it.

Additional requirements apply if the alleged use of the object constituted deadly force. The additional requirements include a reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and the duty to use a reasonable means of escape when the law requires it.

Evidence of the complainant’s prior violence may be relevant in two different ways. Conduct known to the defendant may explain the defendant’s reasonable concern for safety. Under Commonwealth v. Adjutant, specific acts initiated by the complainant may also be admissible when self-defense is raised and the identity of the first aggressor is disputed.

The defense must provide the notice required by Mass. R. Crim. P. 14 when relying on Adjutant evidence. The current Massachusetts Guide to Evidence, Section 404, explains the limits on evidence of the complainant’s prior violence and the prosecution’s opportunity to offer rebuttal evidence.

The firm’s guide to self-defense in Massachusetts addresses nondeadly force, deadly force, retreat, defense of another, and prior-act evidence.

Other Defenses to an ABDW Charge

The object was not dangerous as used. An ordinary object is not a dangerous weapon merely because it was present. The defense can contest the alleged manner of use, capability to cause serious injury, and physical evidence.

The contact did not occur by means of the object. An object displayed during an argument may support another allegation, but ABDW requires a battery by means of the weapon.

The evidence does not prove intent or recklessness. Video, witness accounts, the movement of both parties, and the location of objects may support accident or show that the prosecution’s theory does not match the physical evidence.

The serious-bodily-injury element is absent. Defense counsel must compare the medical records with the statutory definition. Treatment, pain, or a temporary injury does not necessarily establish permanent impairment or a substantial risk of death.

The identification or account is unreliable. Complete messages, 911 recordings, body-camera video, surveillance footage, photographs, and prior statements may expose material inconsistencies.

911 Calls, Medical Statements, and an Unavailable Witness

The Commonwealth may continue the prosecution even if the complainant later decides not to testify. The Commonwealth may seek to admit a 911 call, statements to police or emergency personnel, medical records, photographs, and testimony from other witnesses.

Each statement requires its own analysis. An excited utterance must satisfy the requirements of Massachusetts Guide to Evidence § 803(2). A statement offered for medical diagnosis or treatment is governed by § 803(4). A medical record requires a separate records foundation.

In a criminal trial, the judge must also consider the Confrontation Clause. A testimonial statement generally requires prior cross-examination if the declarant does not appear, while a nontestimonial statement may be admitted if an evidence rule permits it.

The firm’s pages on excited utterances and an unavailable accuser and recantation in a domestic violence case explain those issues.

Stay Away No Contact Orders and Witness Intimidation

The defendant must obey every stay away no contact order unless a judge changes the order. The complainant cannot authorize a violation by inviting or consenting to contact.

A defendant should not ask the complainant to withdraw a report, change testimony, avoid court, or withhold evidence. A defendant who engages in conduct intended to influence or prevent testimony may face a separate witness intimidation charge.

Forfeiture by wrongdoing requires proof that the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct intended to cause the witness’s unavailability. A witness’s ordinary failure to appear does not establish forfeiture. Not every contact with a witness constitutes intimidation. The Commonwealth must prove the facts and the defendant’s intent.

Criminal Records, Firearms, Immigration, and Professional Licensing

A criminal complaint creates a CORI entry at arraignment. A dismissal or acquittal may be eligible for sealing without the seven-year conviction waiting period. Sealing a felony conviction ordinarily requires satisfaction of the statutory seven-year period and the other requirements of G.L. c. 276, § 100A.

State and federal law also impose serious firearm consequences on a conviction. A CWOF or other nonconviction disposition requires separate analysis and may still qualify as a conviction for a federal purpose. The exact result depends on the disposition, offense elements, relationship, and restoration rules.

The firm’s article on firearms after a domestic violence charge explains the different state and federal categories.

Defense counsel must analyze the immigration consequences before any plea or admission. The question whether a disposition is treated as a crime of violence or aggravated felony can depend on the statutory theory, record of conviction, and sentence. A Massachusetts CWOF may still be a conviction under federal immigration law.

Reporting and disciplinary rules for licensed professionals and students vary by profession and institution. The guides to domestic violence and immigration and domestic violence defense for professionals, students, and noncitizens address immigration, reporting, and disciplinary consequences.

Frequently Asked Questions About ADW and ABDW

What is the difference between ADW and ABDW in Massachusetts?

ADW does not require physical contact. The Commonwealth must prove an attempted or immediately threatened battery with a dangerous weapon. ABDW requires an actual touching by means of the weapon. ABDW may be intentional or may rest on reckless conduct that causes bodily injury.

Can Massachusetts charge ADW if no one was touched?

Yes. ADW is the dangerous-weapon form of assault, so a completed battery is not required. Under an attempted-battery theory, the defendant must have specifically intended a battery and come reasonably close to completing it. Under an immediately-threatened-battery theory, the complainant must reasonably perceive an immediate threat that the defendant intended to create.

Is ABDW more serious than ADW in Massachusetts?

ADW and ABDW are both felonies. Basic ADW under G.L. c. 265, § 15B(b) is punishable by up to five years in state prison. Basic ABDW under § 15A(b) is punishable by up to ten years, and aggravated ABDW under § 15A(c) is punishable by up to fifteen. The practical consequences also depend on the evidence, alleged injury, criminal history, and related charges.

What counts as a dangerous weapon in a Massachusetts ABDW case?

Any object used in a way capable of causing serious bodily injury can be a dangerous weapon. Firearms and certain knives are dangerous by design. A shod foot, a phone, a bottle, a piece of furniture, or a car becomes a dangerous weapon through the way it was used. The jury decides whether the object was dangerous as used, considering its size, weight, the force applied, and the point of contact.

Is ABDW a felony in Massachusetts?

Yes. G.L. c. 265, § 15A(b) authorizes up to ten years in state prison, so ABDW is a felony. A District Court judge may impose only the house of correction sentence of up to two and one-half years. Aggravated ABDW under § 15A(c) authorizes up to fifteen years in state prison or up to two and one-half years in a house of correction, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.

Can an ABDW charge be reduced to § 13M or simple assault and battery?

Yes. Simple assault and battery under G.L. c. 265, § 13A is a lesser included offense of ABDW. A jury that finds a battery but rejects the dangerous weapon element may convict the defendant of simple assault and battery. The district attorney may also amend the complaint to § 13A or, where the complainant is a family or household member, to § 13M, as part of a plea agreement.

What is the penalty for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in Massachusetts?

A defendant convicted of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon under G.L. c. 265, § 15A(b) faces up to ten years in state prison, up to two and one-half years in a house of correction, a fine of up to $5,000, or both a fine and imprisonment. A defendant convicted of the aggravated form under § 15A(c) faces up to fifteen years in state prison and a fine of up to $10,000. A defendant convicted of assault by means of a dangerous weapon under § 15B, which requires no touching, faces up to five years in state prison.

What is aggravated assault and battery with a dangerous weapon?

ABDW becomes aggravated under G.L. c. 265, § 15A(c) in four circumstances, each of which the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The first is a battery that caused serious bodily injury. The second is a complainant who was pregnant, when the defendant knew or had reason to know it. The third is a restraining, vacate, or no-contact order protecting the complainant that was in effect and that the defendant knew of. The fourth is a defendant at least eighteen and a complainant under fourteen. Serious bodily injury means permanent disfigurement, loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb, or organ, or a substantial risk of death.

What is reckless assault and battery with a dangerous weapon?

A battery with a weapon that the Commonwealth proves through reckless conduct rather than an intended touching. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct involving a dangerous weapon, that the conduct was reckless, and that it caused bodily injury. Reckless means conduct that creates a high degree of likelihood of substantial harm, which the defendant knew or should have known. An accidental touching is not intentional ABDW, so the Commonwealth may argue recklessness when the contact was unintended. The defense answers both theories, because a defense aimed only at intent leaves the reckless theory open.

Can I be held without bail on an ABDW charge in Massachusetts?

Yes, after a dangerousness hearing. ABDW is a felony with an element of physical force, so it qualifies under G.L. c. 276, § 58A, and an allegation of abuse against a family or household member gives the Commonwealth a second basis for the motion. The judge can order the defendant held for up to 120 days in the District Court, absent good cause, only on clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community. The defense proposes conditions such as GPS monitoring, a stay-away order, and firearms surrender.

Can I claim self-defense if I used an object to defend myself?

Yes. A defendant may use reasonable force, including an object, against an imminent use of unlawful force. Once the evidence fairly raises self-defense, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. The questions are whether the defendant reasonably believed force was necessary and whether the force used was proportionate to the danger the defendant reasonably perceived. If the object was used as deadly force, the defendant must also have reasonably feared death or serious bodily injury and must have used any reasonable means of escape the law requires.

Does an ABDW charge require a family or household relationship?

No. Section 15A applies to a battery with a dangerous weapon against anyone. The Commonwealth treats the case as a domestic violence case because of the alleged relationship, and it commonly adds a charge of assault and battery on a family or household member under G.L. c. 265, § 13M and, when an order was in effect, a charge of violating a 209A restraining order. Each count has its own elements. A § 13M charge does not prove the dangerous weapon element. An object does not prove the relationship.

How Attorney Serpa Defends a Domestic Violence ABDW Charge

Attorney Serpa begins by reviewing the criminal complaint, police reports, 911 recordings, body-camera video, photographs, medical records, protective-order file, witness statements, and any available digital evidence. He examines the alleged object and the theory of use separately from the underlying touching.

Attorney Serpa determines whether the Commonwealth is pursuing intentional or reckless ABDW, whether an aggravated category applies, and whether the evidence raises self-defense. He identifies any hearsay, medical-record, or Confrontation Clause issue before trial.

Serpa Law Office represents clients charged with ABDW and related domestic violence offenses in the Boston Municipal Court and Massachusetts District and Superior Courts. To discuss a pending charge, call 617.936.0201 or request a confidential consultation.

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

Client Reviews

He's one of the best people I've met. I'm really appreciative of all the help I received. If you have a serious case, he'll work hard to make sure you have the best outcome. I highly recommend him. You will not be disappointed.

A.J

Mr. Serpa was very helpful with my family member ‘s case. He was able to get it dismissed quickly and easily. He is very professional and very good at what he does. I’m so glad he hired him. You will be glad too if you hire him.

Z.M.

Serpa law office was my attorney of choice for 2 seperate cases I had last year. With both situations, Joseph not only treated me great, delivered the results I was hoping for, and was extremely professional and genuine. I would definitely recommend this law office to anyone in need of legal help.

P.C.

Submit a Law Firm Client Review

Greater Boston Criminal Law Alerts

Matthew Farwell Convicted in the Death of Sandra Birchmore: The Evidence, the Elements and the Verdict

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center On Tuesday, November 10, 2026, a federal jury in Boston found former Stoughton police officer Matthew Farwell guilty on both counts of the superseding indictment that charged him in the death of Sandra Birchmore, according to WBUR. Count One charged him with killing a witness or…

Judge Denies Lindsay Clancy’s Double Jeopardy Motion: The November 9, 2026 Rulings

By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center On Monday, November 9, 2026, Judge William Sullivan denied Lindsay Clancy’s motion to dismiss the murder charges on double jeopardy grounds. He also denied her request for records about the holdout juror and her request to question that juror under oath. He denied the Commonwealth’s request…

Lindsay Clancy Hearing on November 2, 2026 and the Double Jeopardy Motion

On November 2, 2026, Judge William Sullivan heard the Lindsay Clancy double jeopardy motion and indicated that a second trial could begin in March 2027.