Intimidating a witness ma

Rated 4.64/5 based on 981 customer reviews

At the close of the Commonwealth's case, the trial judge denied the defendant's motion Page 426 for a required finding of not guilty on both charges, and the jury found him guilty of both. He further contends that while one may commit the crime of threatening by conveying a threat to a third-party intermediary with the intent that the threat will be communicated to the actual target, the evidence offered by the Commonwealth at trial was insufficient for a jury to find that the defendant intended that the alleged threat in the voicemail message reach the daughter. "The elements of threatening a crime include an expression Page 427 of intention to inflict a crime on another and an ability to do so in circumstances that would justify apprehension on the part of the recipient of the threat." Commonwealth v.

Accordingly, he asserts, the Commonwealth failed to provide the evidence necessary to support a conviction.

It is important to note that this definition of "family or household member" is more narrow than the the definition that applies to Massachusetts 209A restraining orders (and restraining order violations).

That law includes as "family or household members" (1) spouses and ex-spouses, (2) people who live or have ever lived together, (3) people related by blood or marriage, (4) people who have had a child together and (5) people in a "substantive dating relationship." M.

There was no merit to a criminal defendant's contention concerning a file that the victim carried into the court room during the trial and handed to a court officer. Curtin, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. Fellows, for Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. We also conclude that the defendant's other challenges to his convictions do not entitle him to relief. In February of 2007 in the Cambridge District Court, the defendant was convicted of assault and battery on a person over sixty years old, assault and battery on a police officer, and disorderly conduct; he was sentenced to probation on all three convictions. waived all my fees because I was going to the house of correction. you actually brought your daughter into the court house so I want to thank you for sending me where I was because as you know, there Page 425 are very much predators there and I'm not a predator but I was able to talk about your beautiful daughter. " The probation officer understood the defendant to have made a threat to cause harm to her daughter in a physical or sexual manner.

Both crimes require "a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress." You can be guilty of stalking or harassment no matter how you commit the alarming conduct, whether in person, by phone, text message, fax or otherwise. Stalking when there is a protection order or abuse prevention order in effect has a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in the house of correction or state prison. Unlike stalking, a person does not need to make a threat to be guilty of harassment in Massachusetts. This can be done by threats, violence, harassment, intimidation, misleading a person or even making promises or bribes. It has always been a crime in Massachusetts to commit an assault and battery, or an attempted murder, by grabbing somebody's neck or throat. Stalking and criminal harassment are very similar crimes in Massachusetts. A second offense carries a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in the ouse of correction or state prison. Our courts of appeal have interpreted parts of the law to include trying to prevent a person from contacting the police even if there is no criminal case in existence at the time. You can be sentenced to five years in state prison if you are found guilty of a first offense. Massachusetts domestic violence prosecutions often include a charge of "intimidation of a witness" under section 13B of General Laws 268 that was intended to make it a crime to attempt to interfere with a pending or potential court case, whether criminal or civil. A person who finds him or herself in the presence of the other person by accident is not guilty of violating the order as long as the person leaves immediately when he or she learns that the other person is nearby. The prosecution must also prove that the violation of the order was deliberate.

Leave a Reply