Intimidating witness massachusetts Reff 466 on adult dating sites

48, § 3, the judge's instructions to the jury, which were based on a prior version of the statute, did not create a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice, where the combination of the original instructions and the specific instructions given in response to the jury's questions adequately informed the jury of the elements of intimidation. The victim was then transported to Berkshire Medical Center. First, when the victim was asked on direct examination how it made him feel when Jose warned him not to talk to the police, the victim testified that his reaction was "quite frankly, screw you.

At issue is the March, 2006, amendment to the witness intimidation statute, G. " After Officer De Santis physically escorted the defendant back to the cruiser, the officer examined the victim, who appeared "shaken up and upset" and was bleeding from the nose. The defendant relies on various statements made by the victim to support this contention. to influence, impede, obstruct, delay or otherwise interfere with any witness .

48, § 3, requires that the Commonwealth prove that the target of the intimidating conduct actually be frightened and reluctant to testify in order for the crime of intimidation Page 531 to occur.

intimidating witness massachusetts-12

[Note 2] The defendant's brief does not challenge his conviction for assault.

In these circumstances, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict the defendant of intimidation. FOOTNOTES [Note 1] To avoid confusion, we refer to the defendant's brother, Jose Rivera, by his first name only. Third Element: That Jonathan Dick was a person furnishing information to a criminal investigator .

[Note 5] The court rejected the argument that the "victim was not intimidated because he testified immediately thereafter." Commonwealth v. In response to a "new wave" of gang violence and witness intimidation, the Legislature amended G.

Thus, the prior statute "[did] not require that the intimidation be successful." Ibid.

James Petersen, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. The defendant told the officer that they were "just joking around." The defendant then turned toward the victim and yelled in a "clear" and "decisive" tone, "we were just joking around right? The jury found the defendant guilty of intimidation of a witness and assault, as a lesser included offense. The defendant primarily claims that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of intimidation because the victim was not made afraid and reluctant to testify. in any stage of a trial, grand jury or other criminal proceeding or with any person furnishing information to a criminal investigator .

Officer De Santis called the three men over to the cruiser and Jose and Young complied. Officer De Santis told him several times to come over to the cruiser. The trial judge denied the defendant's motions for required findings of not guilty on both charges.

Jose continued to punch the victim as he tried to retreat.

As we conclude that the elements of intimidation are defined, both before and after the amendment, by the acts, statements, and intentions of the defendant and their ordinary effects on a reasonable person, not the personal reaction of the particular, potential witness, we affirm. On August 20, 2007, the victim, Jonathan Dick, was walking home from work at a Burger King restaurant on First Street in Pittsfield at approximately A. The defendant, his brother, Jose, [Note 1] and a third man, Hervey Young, crossed the street and confronted the victim. The three men surrounded the victim and told him to "run his pockets" and give them his money.

If the amendment substantively changed the intimidation requirement in the statute, a number of issues are raised in this case. Intimidation, according to the prior case law, was "putting a person in fear for the purpose of influencing his or her conduct." Ibid.

The defendant contends that by removing the word "endeavors" the Legislature required that the intimidating words or Page 533 conduct be successful, meaning the defendant instill fear and a reluctance to testify in the potential witness.

The primary argument raised by the defendant, Josef R. As the trio assaulted the victim, Pittsfield police Officer Nicholas De Santis, who was patrolling the area, noticed the altercation and stopped his cruiser.

Tags: , ,