Probation officer charged with intimidating witness dating madame alexander dolls
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 of any type shall be punished . The Commonwealth, however, takes the position that § 13B clearly reaches threatening or intimidating Page 432 conduct intended by the actor to retaliate against or "punish" a probation officer on account of even past criminal proceedings. Section 13B criminalizes intimidating behavior intended to "impede, obstruct, delay, harm, punish " certain types of criminal proceedings (emphasis added).
." As he did in his motion to dismiss filed before trial, the defendant argues that § 13B requires that the threatening, intimidating, or harassing conduct proscribed by the statute be intended to interfere in some way with an open or ongoing criminal proceeding.
He sentenced the defendant to one year accordingly. On January 9, 2008, a criminal complaint issued against the defendant in the Cambridge District Court. The Appeals Court has concluded in several cases that a threat may be communicated to an intended target by way of a third-party intermediary, but only where it is shown that the defendant intended the threat to reach the target.
In particular, Page 430 the voicemail message, in context, suggests that the defendant intended to exploit what the probation officer called her "motherly instinct" in order to instill in her the fear that her daughter would become the victim of a crime. To "otherwise interfere thereby with" therefore means to "interfere" but "in a different way or manner"; this meaning suggests that the preceding words in the statute -- to "impede, obstruct, delay, harm, [or] punish" -- must all be different ways of interfering with a criminal proceeding.
"Otherwise," in its ordinary dictionary sense, means "in a different way or manner." Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1598 (1993).
Consistent with these instructions, the prosecutor argued in closing that the defendant communicated to the probation officer an intent to harm her emotionally by causing her daughter to be the victim of an attack by "predators" -- that is, that the daughter would be the victim of a crime.
The effect of the judge's description of the first element was to place a burden on the Commonwealth not only to prove that the Page 431 defendant communicated a threat to the probation officer, but also that in so doing, he intended to inflict an injury to her or her property.
Turning back to § 2, there was evidence presented at trial in this case to support a finding by the jury that the defendant meant to express to the probation officer his intention to commit a crime against her daughter, that he had the ability to commit such a crime, and that the circumstances reasonably warranted apprehension on the part of the probation officer. The jury also heard the probation officer testify that she feared that imprisoned sexual predators, once released, might be able to harm her daughter. [Note 13] However, "harm" [Note 14] and "punish" [Note 15] do not normally suggest possible types of interference with a "proceeding," whether Page 433 concluded or not. 109, 115 (2008) (where statute unclear, appropriate to look to statute's prior versions, development, and progression through Legislature).
265, § 25, is shown by  malicious threat  made to named person  of personal injury to some one  with intent to extort money, but " 'named person' to whom the threat is made and the 'some one' to be injured need not be the same person"). The jury heard the defendant say on the recording that he had talked to "predators" while incarcerated. [Note 12] As applied to a "proceeding," the earlier listed verbs -- "impede, obstruct, [and] delay" -- as well as the later verb phrase, "otherwise interfere with," would seem to apply meaningfully only to proceedings that have not yet concluded. The previous version of the section provided in relevant part: " Whoever, directly or indirectly, willfully endeavors by means of a gift, offer or promise of anything of value, or by misrepresentation, intimidation, force or express or implied threats of force to influence, impede, obstruct, delay or otherwise interfere with any witness or juror in any stage of a trial, grand jury or other criminal proceeding, or with any person furnishing information to a criminal investigator relating to a violation of a criminal statute of the commonwealth, and  whoever injures any person or damages his property on account of the giving of such information to a criminal investigator or on account of testimony given at a trial, grand jury or other criminal proceeding, shall be punished .
However, this line of cases is factually distinguishable from the present case, in which the Commonwealth's theory was that the probation officer was the direct target of the threat, and not an intermediary.
520, 524-528 (2002) (no intent to communicate threat where intermediary merely overheard statements not intended for alleged victim). with intent thereby to Page 429 extort money or any pecuniary advantage .
An intent to inflict a separate injury on the threat recipient is not required by § 2.
598 (1930), this court held that a person who attempts to extort money from one person by threatening to injure a different person may be found guilty of attempted extortion under G. Following the judge's instructions, in order to find the defendant guilty, the jury in effect had to find that the probation officer was threatened with some type of harm or injury to herself distinct from the allegedly threatened crime against the person of her daughter.
Practice, Criminal, Required finding, Instructions to jury, Prior conviction. After transfer to the Somerville Division of the District Court Department, a motion to dismiss was heard by Neil J. Hamilton, was charged by complaint and subsequently convicted by a jury of threatening to commit a crime, in violation of G. He violated the terms of his probation soon thereafter, and at a final probation surrender hearing on March 28, 2007, the probation officer assigned to supervise the defendant (probation officer), recommended that the defendant's probation be revoked and that he be committed to a one-year sentence in a house of correction. She believed that the defendant had the ability to cause a "predator," even though presently confined at a house of correction, to harm her daughter on such an individual's release.Tags: Adult Dating, affair dating, sex dating