(3) As used in this section, ''harass'' shall mean to engage in any act directed at a specific person or persons, which act seriously alarms or annoys such person or persons and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.
Such act shall include, but not be limited to, an act conducted by mail or by use of a telephonic or telecommunication device or electronic communication device including but not limited to any device that transfers signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo-optical system, including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet communications, instant messages or facsimile communications.
We have successfully defended intimidation of a witness charges by invoking spousal privileged, where the husband allegedly threatened his wife into not calling the police.
The wife later decided not to testify against her husband, which is her right.
What do prosecutors needs to show for a link between the defendant’s act and his intent to intimidate? Canup was arrested in January after he fired a shotgun from his pickup outside a bar near Lee and Fisher streets and then sped off. A Salisbury Police officer was in the area and caught up with Canup, who initially denied having a shotgun. We conclude that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant misled a police officer with the specific intent necessary to prove a violation of § 13B, and therefore reverse that conviction. [Note 4] The defendant and Friguglietti arrived at the lake in the late afternoon, where they met the defendant's wife and children. If you have been charged with intimidation of a witness, contact my office immediately for your free consultation.The witness intimidation statute in the Commonwealth is serious, broadly written, and extraordinarily harsh.