DISCLAIMER:

These summaries of case decisions are intended for informational purposes only. They are not intended to be interpretations of the law, nor do they encompass the subtleties of each case. Therefore, reference to the original text is indispensable.



Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Courtney Grave's Summary of "Commonwealth v. Valentin V."

Commonwealth v. Valentin V.
982 N.E.2d 544 (Mass.App.Ct. 2013) 
SJC No. 12-P-317

The Commonwealth filed an “Application for Criminal Complaint” based on a police report about the defendant who was charged with threatening to commit a crime and witness intimidation.  The juvenile filed a motion to dismiss charges due to lack of probable cause.  The Juvenile Court granted the motion to dismiss and the Commonwealth appealed.  The Appeals Court of Massachusetts reviewed the appeal.

The defendant and a classmate (“Fred”) were under the suspicion of stealing an “Xbox” video game system.  After Fred’s exit from the classroom, the juvenile attempted to follow Fred stating, “he was going to kick [Fred’s] ass.”  The juvenile explained to school officials that Fred was a “snitch” and stated, “he was going to get him.”  Following the threat, the juvenile attempted to flee and police discovered a knife that they believed the juvenile had discarded.  As a result, the juvenile was no longer allowed on school grounds. 

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts evaluated two issues raised by the Commonwealth:  (1) whether the police report established probable cause that juvenile had committed offense of threatening to commit a crime against another, and (2) whether the police report established probable cause that the juvenile committed witness intimidation.

            Threatening to Commit a Crime Against Another
A threat can be communicated directly or indirectly through the usage of an intermediary.  Although the Commonwealth must to show that the juvenile intended the intermediary to communicate the threat to the victim, the crime is complete upon communication of the threat and requires no proof that the threat was actually passed along to the targeted victim.  The trial judge erred by relying on whether the remarks were heard by the target victim.  A proper application should focus “on the defendant’s actions and intentions, not the victim’s reaction.”  The defendant also argued that he was not seeking to communicate a threat to Fred, but was “venting his frustration” when responding to school officials. In addition, the defendant argued he had no intention for the class of kids who heard the threats to communicate them to the targeted victim.  As opposed to trial, probable cause stage requires a “considerably less exacting” quantum of proof.  For this reason, the court found that there was probable cause when the “juvenile made his remark with the intent that others pass it along to Fred.”  The Appeals Court held the police reports established probable cause based on communication in the classroom for the teacher and students to overhear. 

Witness Intimidation
Similar to the threat statute previously discussed, the witness intimidation statute allows direct or indirect acts where the focus is on the defendant’s actions and intentions rather than the victim’s reaction.  In addition to proving the elements for assault and battery, the Commonwealth must prove that Fred was a potential witness in a criminal investigation and that the juvenile willfully made threats with the intent to interfere with the investigation.  The defendant argued there lacked probable cause to demonstrate those elements.  This Court disagreed and reasoned that the “alleged threats were communicated in specific references to the claim that Fred was a “snitch” regarding the recent theft of the Xbox." In addition, there was sufficient evidence showing that the investigation had begun and the juvenile intended his remarks to interfere with it. In conclusion, there was probable cause established for witness intimidation. 

The Appeals Court of Massachusetts reversed the dismissal of the delinquency complaints charging the juvenile with threatening to commit a crime and intimidation of a witness.

Written 7/23/2013