bucharest expat dating - Probation officer charged with intimidating witness

265, § 25, it is not a crime maliciously to threaten one person with injury to another with intent to extort money from the person threatened." Id. The court reasoned: "This [phrase in the statute, quoted above] contains no express or implied limitation as to the person to whom the threat is made, or as to the person from whom it is intended to extort money or other pecuniary advantage. First, that the defendant communicated to the alleged victim, that's [the probation officer] here, an intent to injure her person or property, now or in the future.

probation officer charged with intimidating witness-1

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.

There was no error requiring reversal of the defendant's conviction of threatening to commit a crime.

The defendant, however, was not prejudiced, because the extra burden imposed by these instructions fell on the Commonwealth.

2007) (describing interpretive maxim of noscitur a sociis, i.e., "it is known by its associates").

As a matter of statutory construction, "ordinarily the coupling of words denotes an intention that they should be understood in the same general sense." 2A N. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § , at 352-353 (7th ed.

We conclude, in other words, that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the defendant threatened the probation officer within the meaning of § 2. In light of this lack of clarity, we turn to the history of the statute.

The jury could properly assess whether that apprehension, including the interpretation of predators as sexual predators, was reasonable. Indeed, as applied in that context, the words simply do not make much sense: it is unclear to us what it would mean to "harm" or "punish" a criminal proceeding. The language of § 13B that we have quoted here dates from revisions intended to reduce gang violence.

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.

Tags: , ,