Free live web cams xxx free chat - Intimidating witness massachusetts

According to the case law construing the statute before its amendment in 2006, the statute was intended "to protect witnesses from being bullied or harried so that they do not become reluctant to testify or to give truthful evidence in investigatory or judicial proceedings . For the reasons discussed below, however, we conclude that the amended statute does not require that the words or acts of intimidation actually frighten the potential witness and make the witness reluctant to testify. [and] to prevent interference with the administration of justice." Commonwealth v.

intimidating witness massachusetts-17intimidating witness massachusetts-75

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 .

The defendant also argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he specifically intended to influence the victim in his role as a witness in a criminal investigation. criminal proceeding." [Note 4] The judge instructed: "The Commonwealth must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, in the instruction specifically addressing the jury's question about the victim's reaction, the judge did not use the word, "endeavors," which the amendment had eliminated from the statute.

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.

As he did so, the defendant punched the victim in the head and he dropped to the ground.

a witness or potential witness at any stage of a criminal investigation .

with the intent to impede, obstruct, delay, harm, punish or otherwise interfere thereby with a criminal investigation, grand jury proceeding, trial or other criminal proceeding .

[Note 3], [Note 4] Moreover, neither defense counsel nor the prosecution appeared to be aware that the statute had been amended and no objections were raised regarding the language of the indictment or the jury instructions.

First, the indictment and jury instructions tracked the statutory language prior to the 2006 amendment. Under the prior statute, intimidation was a "means" employed, not an end to be achieved.

This court concluded that the witness intimidation statute, G.

Tags: , ,