Commonwealth v. Skye T. Bohun.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

25-P-1034

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

SKYE T. BOHUN.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

On December 4, 2024, following a violation of probation

hearing, a District Court judge found that the defendant

violated the conditions of his probation by violating an abuse

prevention order on October 24, 2024. See G. L. c. 209A, § 7.

The judge revoked the defendant's probation and imposed a two

and one-half year committed sentence. 1 The defendant appeals,

1On June 21, 2022, the defendant pleaded guilty to one
count of strangulation or suffocation in violation of G. L.
c. 265, § 15D (b) and received a suspended sentence with three
years of probation with conditions. In the same case, the
defendant also pleaded guilty to two counts of assault and
battery on a family or household member in violation of G. L.
c. 265, § 13M (a), and one count of threatening to commit a
crime in violation of G. L. c. 275, § 2. He received two one-
year committed sentences served concurrently with a sentence on
another case for the two counts of assault and battery on a
arguing that the judge erroneously (1) admitted and relied on

six screenshots of text messages that the victim purportedly

received from the defendant, and (2) did not allow the defendant

to cross-examine the responding police officer about a report of

a prior incident involving the parties. We affirm.

Background. The victim of the abuse prevention order

violation is the mother of the defendant's child. 2 At the

violation of probation hearing, the victim testified that, on

October 23, 2024, she received a series of threatening text

messages from the defendant. The text messages entered in

evidence contained the defendant's demands to see his child

immediately, as it was his day to visit with the child, 3 threats

to kill the victim, and a photo of a hallway that the victim

identified as the hallway of her apartment building. The

victim's mother, who was with the victim at the time of the

incident, testified that someone pounded on the door to the

victim's apartment three times around the time the victim

family or household member, and a six-month sentence for the
count of threatening to commit a crime, deemed served.

2 The abuse prevention order requires, inter alia, that the
defendant stay away from the victim's residence. The defendant
is permitted to contact the victim to arrange child exchanges
between the victim and the defendant for his parenting time.

3 The defendant has parenting time with the child on
Wednesdays and alternating weekends. The incident occurred on a
Wednesday.

2
received the text messages. The victim and her mother called

911 after they heard someone pounding on the door. The police

responded and investigated the report and found the defendant

0.2 miles away from the victim's residence approximately one

hour after they received the 911 call. When the police spoke to

the defendant, the defendant stated that he had been attempting

to contact the victim to arrange a child exchange because it was

his day for parenting time. Shortly thereafter, the police

placed him under arrest.

Discussion. "A determination whether a violation of

probation has occurred lies within the discretion of the hearing

judge." Commonwealth v. Bukin, 467 Mass. 516, 519-520 (2014).

"The Commonwealth must prove a violation of probation by a

preponderance of the evidence." Id. at 520. We also review a

judge's evidentiary decisions at a probation violation hearing

for abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Rainey, 491 Mass.

632, 648 (2023).

1. The text message screenshots. We review claims of

error not preserved at a probation final surrender hearing for

whether any error created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of

justice. See Commonwealth v. Pickering, 479 Mass. 589, 590

(2018).

At the violation of probation hearing, the Commonwealth

entered in evidence six screenshots of text messages that the

3
defendant allegedly sent to the victim's telephone. On appeal,

the defendant argues the screenshots should not have been

admitted because he was not given notice that they would be

entered in evidence prior to the hearing 4 and because the

screenshots were unreliable hearsay statements. Neither claim

is availing.

We begin by noting that on the day of the hearing, the

defendant did not argue that he could not go forward with the

hearing due to receiving the text messages that day. Nor did he

seek a continuance. In fact, the judge asked defense counsel

whether she objected to the admission of the screenshots, and

she responded, "No objection." Defense counsel then cross-

examined the victim and her mother about the content of the text

messages, challenged the victim's mother's basis of knowledge

that the defendant sent some messages from an unfamiliar number,

and questioned the responding officer about whether the

screenshots "could have been taken at any moment in time." We

therefore cannot say that the admission of the screenshots

without prior notice, if error, created a substantial risk of a

miscarriage of justice. See Pickering, 479 Mass. at 590.

4 We note that the Commonwealth disputes the defendant's
claim that he did not receive notice of the screenshots prior to
the hearing. Indeed, during an exchange regarding the admission
of the text messages, the probation officer stated that she had
"provided [defense counsel] all of the exhibits that [she] had
previously received from the police department."

4
Because the screenshots were of text messages written by

the defendant, the screenshots were not hearsay. 5 See Mass. G.

Evid. § 801(d)(2) (2026) (party opponent statements not

hearsay). To the extent that the defendant challenges the

authenticity of the text messages, the judge had sufficient

evidence to find that the defendant sent the text messages to

the victim. See Commonwealth v. Welch, 487 Mass. 425, 440

(2021), quoting Mass. G. Evid. § 901(a) (2021) ("To satisfy the

requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of

evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to

support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it

is"). Specifically, the victim testified that she received most

of the text messages from a telephone number she used to

communicate with the defendant before and after she called the

police, and that she heard knocking on her apartment door around

the time she received the picture of an apartment hallway. 6 Most

5 The statements also were not hearsay because they were not
entered in evidence for the truth of the defendant's statements,
but to show that the defendant had made threatening statements
to the victim and had contacted her beyond what was permissible
in the restraining order. See Mass. G. Evid. § 801(c) (2026).

6 One screenshot of text messages was from a number unknown
to the victim. However, the victim testified that she received
the text messages from the unknown number after reporting the
defendant to the police. The statements in the messages both
reference the fact that the victim had called the police and the
defendant's attempts to exchange the victim's and defendant's
child, the same subject as the earlier text messages.

5
importantly, the judge also relied on the fact that, when police

questioned the defendant before arresting him, the defendant

acknowledged that he had sent text messages to the victim.

Accordingly, we discern no error in the admission of the text

messages. See Rainey, 491 Mass. at 648.

2. The defendant's cross-examination of the police

witness. The defendant argues that his attorney should have

been allowed to question the police officer about a report

regarding a June 10, 2024, incident where the victim had

reported that the defendant vandalized her automobile tires.

Specifically, the defendant asserts that, because the victim did

not personally see the defendant during either the June incident

or the October incident and the defendant was not present when

police arrived to investigate either incident, the victim likely

fabricated both reports. As the judge noted, the defendant's

violation of his probation was based on the October 23, 2024

incident. The judge further noted that the probative value of

the defendant's proposed line of questioning was too attenuated

to be relevant, especially where the defendant acknowledges that

police located him only 0.2 miles from the victim's apartment on

the day of the occurrence and he admitted that he had been

trying to contact the victim. See Mass. G. Evid. § 401

(evidence is relevant if it makes more or less probable fact of

consequence in determining action); Mass G. Evid. § 403 ("The

6
court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is

substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the

following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading

the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting

cumulative evidence"). See also Rainey, 491 Mass. at 648.

Order revoking probation
affirmed.

By the Court (Desmond, Tan &
Wood, JJ. 7),

Clerk

Entered: April 27, 2026.

7 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

7