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
