Appeals Court of Massachusetts. COMMONWEALTH v. Richard B. O'NEILL, Jr. COMMONWEALTH v. Richard B. O'NEILL, Jr. Decided: August 25, 2026 By the Court (Walsh, Hershfang & D'Angelo, JJ.2) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 Between March and May 2022, four criminal complaints issued against the defendant charging him with violating an abuse prevention order. The defendant pleaded guilty to the counts in all four complaints and was sentenced on the first complaint to two and one-half years in the house of correction, nine months to be served, with the balance suspended for two years. On the second, third, and fourth complaints, he was sentenced to concurrent terms of probation for two years on and after his release from the sentence on the first complaint. While on probation, the defendant was charged in three criminal complaints with violating the abuse prevention order by contacting the victim. After a notice of probation violation issued, a District Court judge held a two-day evidentiary hearing, after which he found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation and imposed twenty-one months in the house of correction -- the balance of his suspended sentence -- and an additional two years in the house of correction on and after the twenty-one months. 1 On appeal, the defendant challenges the judge's admission into evidence of the victim's text messages. He also contends that the judge erred in revoking probation and imposing the suspended sentence. We affirm. 1. The text messages. As the defendant correctly acknowledged, “standard evidentiary rules do not apply to probation revocation hearings,” Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 117 (1990), and “[a] judge may rely on hearsay evidence at a probation violation hearing where the evidence has substantial indicia of reliability.” Commonwealth v. Ogarro, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 662, 668 (2019). In assessing whether hearsay evidence is reliable, a judge may consider the following: “(1) whether the evidence is based on personal knowledge or direct observation; (2) whether the evidence, if based on direct observation, was recorded close in time to the events in question; (3) the level of factual detail; (4) whether the statements are internally consistent; (5) whether the evidence is corroborated by information from other sources; (6) whether the declarant was disinterested when the statements were made; and (7) whether the statements were made under circumstances that support their veracity.” Commonwealth v. Hartfield, 474 Mass. 474, 484 (2016). “There is no requirement that hearsay satisfy all the above criteria to be trustworthy and reliable.” Commonwealth v. Patton, 458 Mass. 119, 133 (2010). We review the admission of such evidence for abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Jarrett, 491 Mass. 437, 445 (2023), citing L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014). The text messages bore “substantial indicia of reliability.” Ogarro, 95 Mass. App. Ct. at 668. The victim testified that she identified the defendant as the sender of the messages because he mentioned the name of the restaurant where they had met, and an online search for the telephone number linked it to the defendant. The author of the text message was in New York, where the defendant used to work and had friends. Additional text messages sent from the same number coincided with calls from the defendant -- who identified himself, and whose name appeared on the “caller ID” -- to a restaurant with which the victim worked. In additional text messages, the defendant said he had “all her famil[y's] info” and asked the victim to check her e-mail messages; when she did, she “found a 20 page background check that [the defendant] had run,” “outlining [her] associates as well as previous partners and members of [her] family.” These text messages were sent from a telephone number the victim knew as the defendant's; this number also appeared on the signature in his e-mail messages to the victim. We are equally unpersuaded by the defendant's assertion that the Commonwealth's failure to produce the text messages before the hearing violated the defendant's due process rights. As the Supreme Judicial Court has explained, “a probationer need not be provided with the full panoply of constitutional protections applicable at a criminal trial,” Durling, 407 Mass. at 112, and due process principles do not mandate prehearing disclosure of all evidence. See id. at 113. A probation revocation hearing is not a criminal prosecution, but rather a “narrow inquiry” in which “the process should be flexible enough to consider evidence ․ that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972). 2. The sentence. The defendant asserts that the judge abused his discretion by imposing the suspended sentence. The defendant maintains that his probation violations resulted from mental health diagnoses and the judge “failed to weigh the goals of helping the defendant in therapy.” We again review for an abuse of discretion, Jarrett, 491 Mass. at 445, citing L.L., 470 Mass. at 185 n.27, and we again discern none. The defendant had previously been sentenced to a term of two and one-half years’ incarceration and, as the judge found, the Commonwealth met its burden to show the defendant had violated his terms of probation. The judge's next task was to “determine the appropriate disposition for the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Eldred, 480 Mass. 90, 102 (2018). In so doing, the judge was to consider “such factors as public safety; the circumstances of any crime for which the probationer was placed on probation; the nature of the probation violation; the occurrence of any previous violations; and the impact of the underlying crime on any person or community, as well as mitigating factors.” Id. at 103, quoting Rule 8(d) of the District/Municipal Court Rules for Probation Violation Proceedings. The defendant was “entitled to show that there was a justifiable excuse for any violation or that revocation [wa]s not the appropriate disposition” (quotation and citation omitted). Eldred, supra at 103. By presenting a forensic psychologist, the defendant did that. But there was no requirement that the judge accept this view. See id. at 104. In the exercise of his discretion, he was permitted to impose the suspended sentence, and he did. We affirm the finding of a probation violation and affirm the order revoking probation and imposing sentence. 1 . On appeal, the parties refer only to the imposition of the suspended portion of the two and one-half year sentence. The defendant does not challenge the imposition of the additional two-year sentence, and, accordingly, we do not address it. Thank you for your feedback! Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI. As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin. COMMONWEALTH v. NEILL (2026)

Docket No: 24-P-1212 Decided: August 25, 2026 Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts. Need to Find an Attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required) For Legal Professionals Practice Management Legal Technology Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up. Get updates from FindLaw Legal Professionals Enter your email address to subscribe: Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters , including our terms of use and privacy policy. Did FindLaw Help You Understand This Legal Issue? Make It a Preferred Google Search Source Learn About the Law Get help with your legal needs FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help. Need to Find an Attorney? Search our directory by legal issue Enter information in one or both fields (Required)