On October 27, 2026, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed Sean N. Pelfrey’s conviction for assault by means of a dangerous weapon under G.L. c. 265, § 15B(b). The unpublished summary decision in Commonwealth v. Pelfrey, 25-P-1604, rejects the defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient.
The jury could have found that on the morning of May 23, 2024, inside a Burlington Coat Factory in Natick, Pelfrey asked another man for money. After the man refused—and, according to the defendant, mentioned a firearm—he fled into the store’s employee-only back room. Pelfrey followed with a hatchet. When an employee stepped in front of him with arms outstretched, Pelfrey said he “needed to do what he has to do.” The store manager evacuated staff, had them lock themselves in secure areas, and called police. Officers later recovered the hatchet and a machete from Pelfrey’s backpack. The victim appeared shaken and was barefoot.
Pelfrey testified that the tools were for work and that he acted in self-defense after the victim threatened him first with a broomstick and then with a gun. He said he only pursued the man to protect himself.
The Appeals Court held that the evidence was enough under both theories of assault: attempted battery and immediately threatened battery. Chasing the victim with a hatchet, declaring that he had to “do what he has to do,” and continuing until an employee intervened supported inferences of intent, an overt step, and coming reasonably close to completing a battery. The same conduct was objectively threatening; the victim’s flight into a restricted area and his shaken demeanor afterward showed he perceived the threat.
Judgment affirmed. As a Rule 23.0 summary decision, the opinion is persuasive only and not binding precedent.