Massachusetts Criminal Harassment FAQs

A first offense under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43A(a) is a misdemeanor punished by up to two and one half years in the house of correction, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. A second or subsequent offense, or criminal harassment committed after a prior stalking conviction, falls under § 43A(c) and is punished by up to ten years in state prison and a fine of up to $15,000. The full legal treatment is on our criminal harassment defense page.

At least three separate acts. The Supreme Judicial Court held in Commonwealth v. Welch, 444 Mass. 80 (2005), that the statute’s phrase “pattern of conduct or series of acts” requires three or more incidents, and that the defendant must have intended to target the alleged victim on each of the three occasions. The acts must be genuinely separate incidents divided by some interval of time. One continuous argument, however unpleasant, is not three acts, and in Commonwealth v. McDonald, 462 Mass. 236 (2012), conduct observed on a single day was held insufficient.

Yes. Section 43A expressly reaches conduct by mail, telephone, and electronic communication devices, including electronic mail, internet communications, instant messages, and facsimile communications. In Commonwealth v. Johnson, 470 Mass. 300 (2014), the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed convictions where the pattern consisted of online postings, including acts carried out through third parties. The digital record also creates defenses: screenshots must be authenticated, accounts must be attributed to a specific author, and evidence taken from a phone must comply with the rules described on our digital searches page.

Yes. Under Commonwealth v. Johnson, acts accomplished through third parties can satisfy the pattern element, and postings about a person can qualify when they are intended to target that person. In Commonwealth v. Salvatore, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 605 (2023), the charged pattern consisted largely of social media postings about the complainant rather than messages sent to him. Whether a posting was directed at the specific person, or was instead commentary the person happened to see, is a central contested issue in these cases.

Speech about a public official’s conduct in office is political expression, and the Supreme Judicial Court reversed criminal harassment convictions based on letters to a town selectman in Commonwealth v. Bigelow, 475 Mass. 554 (2016). Where the charged acts are speech, the speech must fall within a constitutionally unprotected category, such as a true threat or fighting words, before it can support a conviction. The same limits apply to 258E orders under Van Liew v. Stansfield, 474 Mass. 31 (2016). Offensive, angry, or insulting speech is not, by itself, a crime.

Stalking under M.G.L. c. 265, § 43 contains the same pattern elements plus a threat made with the intent to place the person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury. Stalking is a felony carrying up to five years in state prison, a mandatory minimum of one year when committed in violation of certain protective orders, and a mandatory minimum of two years for a second offense. A prior stalking conviction also elevates a later criminal harassment charge into the ten-year provision of § 43A(c). The felony is treated fully on our stalking page.

A 258E order is civil: a judge issues it on a preponderance of the evidence, and it restrains future conduct. Criminal harassment is a crime that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and is punished with a record and potential incarceration. An issued 258E order is not a finding that you committed a crime, and a denied application is not an acquittal. Violating an issued order is a separate crime under c. 258E, § 9, and continued contact after service often produces both charges at once.

Often, yes. The Commonwealth must prove that each act was willful and malicious, meaning intentional and without justification, and that the acts seriously alarmed the complainant. A full thread that shows mutual contact, invitations to communicate, or responses inconsistent with alarm undermines several elements at once. Selective screenshots are common in these cases, and one of the first defense tasks is recovering the complete exchange from both sides, including messages the complainant sent after the acts they describe as alarming.

No. Once a complaint issues, the case belongs to the Commonwealth, and only the prosecutor or the court can end it. A complainant’s change of heart may affect the strength of the case, but it does not dismiss the charge, and pressuring a complainant to withdraw can constitute intimidation of a witness under c. 268, § 13B, a felony. The lawful paths to ending the case are described on our page on how Massachusetts criminal cases get dismissed.

Treat the hearing as the most important stage of the case, because a complaint denied there creates no CORI entry at all. Do not contact the complainant, do not post about the dispute, and do not attend without counsel. Under Commonwealth v. Salvatore, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 605 (2023), testimony given at the show cause hearing counts in the probable cause analysis, so what is said in that room can either end the case or build the record against you. Preparation is covered in our clerk-magistrate hearing FAQs.

No. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state, and secretly recording a conversation is a felony under G.L. c. 272, § 99, even on your own phone and even to document what you believe is harassment of you. Using or disclosing such a recording is a separate crime. Preserve messages, call logs, voicemails, and witnesses instead, and let counsel decide what can be used. The rules are explained on our page on Massachusetts wiretap law and secret recordings.

A charge creates a CORI entry at arraignment regardless of the outcome. A dismissal can be sealed after three years and a misdemeanor conviction after three years from the end of the sentence, with longer periods for felonies, under the rules on our sealing and expungement page. A complaint denied at the clerk-magistrate stage never reaches the CORI at all, which is why the earliest stage of the case matters most.

It can. Licensing boards ask about charges as well as convictions, and an arraignment alone can trigger reporting obligations for nurses, physicians, attorneys, teachers, and securities professionals, as described on our professional license page. For noncitizens, harassment and stalking dispositions can carry immigration consequences, particularly where a protective order is involved; the framework is on our immigration consequences page. Both concerns argue for resolving the case before arraignment where possible.

The defenses track the elements: fewer than three qualifying acts; acts not directed at the specific complainant; acts that are protected speech rather than true threats or fighting words; a legitimate purpose that negates malice, such as litigation, debt collection, or co-parenting communication; the absence of serious alarm in fact; and conduct that would not cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress. Digital cases add attribution and authentication challenges and motions to suppress unlawfully obtained devices and messages. A motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause is available after the clerk-magistrate stage.