Intimidating a witness ma
A Boston Municipal Court judge, in granting a criminal defendants motion to vacate a conviction of intimidating a person furthering a court proceeding in violation of G. [394-395] There was no merit to a criminal defendants contentions that there was insufficient evidence at trial to support his convictions of stalking and threatening to commit a crime  or that certain errors in the jury instructions created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. Subsequently, the defendant filed suit against Wells Fargo in Superior Court, alleging that his mother's loan was predatory, fraudulent, and unenforceable. She concluded that this language provided the Boston Municipal Court with jurisdiction only over charges under that section alleging intimidation of a "witness" or a "juror." [Note 2] The language of the intimidation statute itself, that is, G.
Practice, Criminal, Duplicative convictions, Lesser included offense, Instructions to jury. 268, § 13B, erred in concluding that the Boston Municipal Court was without jurisdiction to hear that charge, where the relevant legislative history of G.  This court ordered that a criminal defendants docket sheet and mittimus be amended to correct an error with respect to the defendants sentence. 265, § 43 (count 2); threatening Page 385 to commit a crime in violation of G. We remand the case to the trial court for imposition of the original sentences imposed after trial. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the jury could have found the following facts: [Note 1] At some point prior to 2009, the defendant's mother, Irene Wood, obtained a loan from Wells Fargo Bank (Wells Fargo). 268, § 13B, is broader than that, and in this Page 388 case, the defendant was convicted of intimidating a "person who [was] furthering a civil .
At the beginning, these communications were in no way out of the ordinary. Is your heart light like a feather, or is it heavy as lead!?
However, after some period of time, the defendant added Higgins's e-mail address to a large e-mail list and Higgins began to receive what he described as "spam" e-mails. Woodlock of the United States District Court allowed Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Federal case, and shortly thereafter, the defendant filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (First Circuit). " On April 12, 2012, a criminal complaint was issued in the Boston Municipal Court against the defendant for the present offenses.
13B, and the legislative history of the statute, do not require that there be an ongoing criminal proceeding for the statute to be applicable to conduct that interferes with any person furnishing information to a criminal investigator relating to a criminal violation. He then returned to the living room, where he continued to attack Ralph Petraglia.
13B, to the effect that the defendant interrupted his assault of his brother-in-law in order to prevent his sister-in-law from calling the police by ripping the telephone cord from the wall, was sufficient to warrant the jury to find that the defendant had, in violation of the statute, forcefully interfered with her attempt to furnish information to the police. [230-231] There was no merit to a criminal defendant's claim that the judge's correct instructions to the jury on the relevant portion of the witness intimidation statute, G. On transfer to the jury session of the Norfolk Division, the case was tried before Kathleen E. The defendant temporarily stopped beating Ralph Petraglia, entered the dining room, and severed the phone cord from the wall.
The defendant was acquitted of additional charges of assault and battery, assault with a dangerous weapon, and threats to commit a crime against a police officer. The defendant briefly went into the kitchen, then returned to the living room, where he physically attacked his brother-in-law, Ralph Petraglia.
The defendant was also convicted of one charge of assault and battery, which he does not appeal. 13B, the defendant challenges the judge's denial of his motion for a required finding of not guilty, and contends that the judge's instructions to the jury deprived him of a fair trial. Ralph Petraglia lived with his wife Diane and their three children in the home of Ms. On September 21, 1995, the defendant arrived home, entering the house through the living room, where the Petraglias and two of their children were having dinner. The language of the witness intimidation statute has two distinct branches, separated by the word "or." The statute may be applied either to witnesses and jurors in ongoing criminal proceedings, or to any person furnishing information to a criminal investigator relating to a crime. Domestic violence abuse can be physical, emotional, sexual, economic control, and neglect.