83 Mass. App. Ct. 640
Summary:
Defendant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court Department
of Hampden (Massachusetts), which convicted him of witness intimidation, in
violation of Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 268, § 13B, following a jury trial.
Facts:
On
November 21, 2008, the defendant Angel M. Rosario reported to his probation
officer in the Hall of Justice. The meeting lasted approximately ten minutes. The
victim in the defendant’s case, Joseph Alvarado, was also at the Hall of
Justice that day. The victim, who was in custody, was scheduled to appear in
the District Court. Although the defendant had no other business at the Hall of Justice on that afternoon, he
remained there until the victim was escorted by a court officer to a District
Court courtroom. The defendant gestured at Alvarado by putting two fingers to
his temple and a thumb facing up, mimicking the shooting of a gun, and stated
in Spanish, "you are going to die." The victim became nervous and
reported the incident to both the court officer and the judge. After the
hearing,
the
defendant again approached the victim and the court officer from behind and
repeated his threat to him.
Issue:
The
issue in this case is whether the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to
the Commonwealth, is sufficient so that the jury might properly conclude upon
all the established circumstances and warranted inferences that the
Commonwealth proved the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holding:
The
jury could have reasonably inferred that the encounter was not spontaneous, but
instead was planned with the intent to interfere with the victim’s testimony.
The defendant, who had been ordered to stay away from the victim, not only
remained in the courthouse long after his appointment with his probation
officer, but he lingered to the point of risking a violation of his curfew.
These circumstances do not suggest, as the defendant contends, that this was a
chance encounter. Furthermore, neither, nor the fact that the encounter
occurred before the indictments were returned made it less likely that the
defendant intended to influence the victim’s testimony. Judgment affirmed.
Written 7/14/2013
