Domestic assult intimidating witness massachusetts

However, the statute is broad enough to include almost any means of communication.(2) The other person was one of the following: If the Commonwealth wants to prove that the other person was an “investigator,” then it must show that the “investigator” was a person or group of individuals who has lawful authorization to conduct or engage in an investigation of an alleged violation of law (including the prosecution or defense of any alleged violation) as part of his or her official duties. For example, if the defendant is charged with intimidating a witness, but the Commonwealth has no evidence that the defendant knew or should have known that the person was or might be a witness in a proceeding, then the Commonwealth cannot show that all three elements exist.The “lawful authorization” must come from (a) the federal government, (b) the Commonwealth, or (c) a political subdivision of either the federal government or the Commonwealth (such as a city or town of the Commonwealth).(3) The defendant acted either willfully, or with reckless disregard for the impact that his or her conduct would have in interfering with the applicable civil or criminal proceeding. It is also a defense if the defendant only acted negligently (that is, he or she acted in a way that a reasonable person would not).To prove that the defendant acted willfully, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant’s specific purpose or objective was to impede, obstruct, delay, or otherwise interfere with the applicable proceeding. 268, Section 13BAn obvious example of criminal intimidation is when a defendant tells a witness or victim that if he or she gives the police any information about the defendant relating to a crime the police are investigating, then he or she “will be sorry,” and the defendant’s clear intent is to use threats or intimidation to dissuade the witness or victim from participating in the police investigation. The specific facts of each case may give rise to additional defenses.To prove that the defendants acted recklessly, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant knew, or should have known, that his or her actions were very likely to impede, obstruct, delay, or otherwise interfere with the proceeding, and that the defendant ran that risk and acted anyway. However, criminal intimidation does not need to involve a particularly threatening act. Penalties Criminal intimidation is a felony punishable by (i) up to 2 ½ years in jail or in a house of correction, (ii) up to 10 years in state prison, (iii) a fine of at least

However, the statute is broad enough to include almost any means of communication.(2) The other person was one of the following: If the Commonwealth wants to prove that the other person was an “investigator,” then it must show that the “investigator” was a person or group of individuals who has lawful authorization to conduct or engage in an investigation of an alleged violation of law (including the prosecution or defense of any alleged violation) as part of his or her official duties. For example, if the defendant is charged with intimidating a witness, but the Commonwealth has no evidence that the defendant knew or should have known that the person was or might be a witness in a proceeding, then the Commonwealth cannot show that all three elements exist.The “lawful authorization” must come from (a) the federal government, (b) the Commonwealth, or (c) a political subdivision of either the federal government or the Commonwealth (such as a city or town of the Commonwealth).(3) The defendant acted either willfully, or with reckless disregard for the impact that his or her conduct would have in interfering with the applicable civil or criminal proceeding. It is also a defense if the defendant only acted negligently (that is, he or she acted in a way that a reasonable person would not).To prove that the defendant acted willfully, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant’s specific purpose or objective was to impede, obstruct, delay, or otherwise interfere with the applicable proceeding. 268, Section 13BAn obvious example of criminal intimidation is when a defendant tells a witness or victim that if he or she gives the police any information about the defendant relating to a crime the police are investigating, then he or she “will be sorry,” and the defendant’s clear intent is to use threats or intimidation to dissuade the witness or victim from participating in the police investigation. The specific facts of each case may give rise to additional defenses.To prove that the defendants acted recklessly, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant knew, or should have known, that his or her actions were very likely to impede, obstruct, delay, or otherwise interfere with the proceeding, and that the defendant ran that risk and acted anyway. However, criminal intimidation does not need to involve a particularly threatening act. Penalties Criminal intimidation is a felony punishable by (i) up to 2 ½ years in jail or in a house of correction, (ii) up to 10 years in state prison, (iii) a fine of at least $1,000, and up to $5,000, or (iv) both a fine and imprisonment.

||

However, the statute is broad enough to include almost any means of communication.(2) The other person was one of the following: If the Commonwealth wants to prove that the other person was an “investigator,” then it must show that the “investigator” was a person or group of individuals who has lawful authorization to conduct or engage in an investigation of an alleged violation of law (including the prosecution or defense of any alleged violation) as part of his or her official duties. For example, if the defendant is charged with intimidating a witness, but the Commonwealth has no evidence that the defendant knew or should have known that the person was or might be a witness in a proceeding, then the Commonwealth cannot show that all three elements exist.

The “lawful authorization” must come from (a) the federal government, (b) the Commonwealth, or (c) a political subdivision of either the federal government or the Commonwealth (such as a city or town of the Commonwealth).(3) The defendant acted either willfully, or with reckless disregard for the impact that his or her conduct would have in interfering with the applicable civil or criminal proceeding. It is also a defense if the defendant only acted negligently (that is, he or she acted in a way that a reasonable person would not).

To prove that the defendant acted willfully, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant’s specific purpose or objective was to impede, obstruct, delay, or otherwise interfere with the applicable proceeding. 268, Section 13BAn obvious example of criminal intimidation is when a defendant tells a witness or victim that if he or she gives the police any information about the defendant relating to a crime the police are investigating, then he or she “will be sorry,” and the defendant’s clear intent is to use threats or intimidation to dissuade the witness or victim from participating in the police investigation. The specific facts of each case may give rise to additional defenses.

To prove that the defendants acted recklessly, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant knew, or should have known, that his or her actions were very likely to impede, obstruct, delay, or otherwise interfere with the proceeding, and that the defendant ran that risk and acted anyway. However, criminal intimidation does not need to involve a particularly threatening act. Penalties Criminal intimidation is a felony punishable by (i) up to 2 ½ years in jail or in a house of correction, (ii) up to 10 years in state prison, (iii) a fine of at least $1,000, and up to $5,000, or (iv) both a fine and imprisonment.

Under the 2014 law, the potential penalties for the crime of domestic assault and battery are increased from those of regular assault and battery in several ways.

First, any sentence is required to include referral to a state certified "batterer's intervention" program -- a very expensive and time consuming program -- unless the judge makes specific findings that it is unnecessary (something that is anticipated to be very rare).

In 2014 the laws in Massachusetts were amended to create a new crime of assault and battery on a family/household member, also sometimes referred to as domestic assault and battery.

Before 2014, such cases were brought under the generic assault and battery statue.

,000, and up to ,000, or (iv) both a fine and imprisonment.

Following the highly publicized case of Jared Remy, it has become common practice for some District Attorney's offices to ask that defendants be .

When deciding what counts as a "substantive dating relationship," the statute states that the jury should consider "the length of time of the relationship; the type of relationship; the frequency of interaction between the parties; whether the relationship was terminated by either person; and the length of time elapsed since the termination of the relationship." If the person who is alleged to have been assaulted calls the District Attorney to say that it was "all a big misunderstanding" or that the (s)he wants to "drop the charges" the likely response will be that whether or not the charges are prosecuted is up to the District Attorney, not the alleged victim.

Furthermore, the assistant district attorneys who handle individual cases are trained as a matter of course not to dismiss domestic assault and battery cases even if the alleged victim wants the charges dismissed.

In the past, if the Commonwealth sought to have a person held without bail, it was the ordinary procedure for the Commonwealth to call the witnesses to testify at the hearing on its request.

The 2014 law, however, directs the court to consider the statements of the witnesses even without their presence, and clearly indicates an intent that individuals be held without bail on a much more frequent basis.

Leave a Reply