It’s been a few years since COVID. But I still cringe when I hear the words “mask mandate.”
Last Friday the Appeals Court published a slip opinion in Commonwealth v. Eric McAndrew 24-P-74.
During the COVID madness, court officers ordered McAndrew to leave a state courthouse because he refused to wear a mask.
McAndrew claimed to be medically exempt from wearing a mask and refused to leave the building.
Court officers allegedly ordered McAndrew to leave at least ten times before giving him the bum’s rush out the door.
He was subsequently charged with disorderly conduct.
At trial the prosecutor argued that McAndrew’s behavior–while non-violent–was “tumultuous.”
According to Massachusetts case law “tumultuous behavior” for purposes of the disorderly-conduct statute may include “the refusal to obey a police order. ” See Commonwealth v. Marcavage, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 34, 38 (2009).
The prosecutor’s argument won and McAndrew was convicted.
He appealed the conviction.
Today the Appeals Court affirmed the jury’s verdict, writing
By disobeying the court officer’s repeated orders to leave the building, the defendant interfered with the court officers’ ability to maintain security in the courthouse. The disruptive nature of the defendant’s conduct in the setting of a courthouse made his behavior far more damaging to public order than had he done those same actions outside or, for example, [at] a sporting event. From these circumstances, the jury were entitled to find that the defendant engaged in violent or tumultuous behavior; that his actions were reasonably likely to affect the public; and that he either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
The full text of the slip opinion is attached below.