Criminal – Witness intimidation

Listen to this article

Where a defendant was convicted of violating the witness intimidation statute, G.L.c. 268, §13B, the conviction must be affirmed because the commonwealth's evidence satisfied the "reasonable person" standard.

"At issue is the March, 2006, amendment to the witness intimidation statute, G.L.c. 268, §13B. … The primary argument raised by the defendant, Josef R. Rivera, is that the amended statute, G.L.c. 268, §13B(1)(c), as appearing in St. 2006, c. 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 to occur. 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."

Commonwealth v. Rivera (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-057-10) (13 pages) (Kafker, J.) (Appeals Court) Cases tried before Agostini, J., in Superior Court. Kathleen M. Kelly for the defendant; James Petersen for the commonwealth (Docket No. 09-P-665) (April 7, 2010).