finding that the defendant's charged acts were “committed with the requisite malice” because they “were motivated by hostility toward the [property owner]”
Summary of this case from Neto v. HolderNo. 04-P-1411.
September 29, 2005.
Decision Pursuant to Rule 1:28.
Judgment affirmed.
finding that the defendant's charged acts were “committed with the requisite malice” because they “were motivated by hostility toward the [property owner]”
Summary of this case from Neto v. HolderFull title:COMMONWEALTH vs. SAMEH S. TAWFIK
Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Date published: Sep 29, 2005
The Massachusetts courts have required evidence of an act “by design hostile to the owner (even if unknown)…