Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 459 Mass. 422

Background

Hamilton was previously convicted in Cambridge District Court in Feb. 2007 for assault and battery on a person over sixty, assault and battery on a police officer, and disorderly conduct; probation was imposed.
He violated probation and in March 2007 the judge revoked probation and sentenced him to one year in a house of correction.
After release, on January 3, 2008, Hamilton left a voicemail for the probation officer implying harm to her daughter and referencing past probation violations and fees.
The probation officer understood the message as a threat to harm her daughter and reported it to police; she feared for her daughter's safety.
A criminal complaint issued January 9, 2008 charged Hamilton with threatening to commit a crime and intimidating a witness; the Commonwealth presented the voicemail at trial.
The jury convicted Hamilton of threatening to commit a crime but acquitted on the witness-intimidation count, which the court later reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must the threat target equal the threatened crime's target?	Hamilton argues §2 requires same target for threat and crime.	Hamilton argues the verdict rests on bystander target and intent to reach daughter is insufficient.	No; §2 does not require identical targets; threat may be to person or property of another.
Validity of prosecution under §13B for past retaliation against a probation officer	Commonwealth maintains §13B covers retaliatory conduct against probation officers regardless of ongoing proceeding.	Hamilton contends §13B is ambiguous and should be read to require ongoing proceedings or clearer scope.	Ambiguity requires lenity; reverse the §13B conviction and remand for not guilty finding.
Admissibility of prior bad acts evidence and its impact on the threat conviction	Prior convictions were relevant to whether the officer reasonably feared an ability to carry out the threat.	Such evidence shows propensity and risks unfair prejudice.	No reversible error; limiting instructions cured prejudice; no substantial risk of miscarriage.
Witness and police testimony on defendant's intent	Detective and officer properly interpreted the threat as intended to frighten the officer.	Opinion testimony on intent should be excluded.	Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the record and surrounding evidence.
Probation officer's file as trial material	File could prejudice jury against defendant.	File presented as improper prop; irrelevant to issue.	No reversible error; file not opened or referenced and did not affect verdict.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Sholley, 432 Mass. 721 (Mass. 2000) (elements of threatening to commit a crime; ability to inflict injury required)
Commonwealth v. Snow, 269 Mass. 598 (Mass. 1930) (extortion-like reasoning for threat targets; broad interpretation of target language)
Commonwealth v. Maiden, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 433 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) (threats through intermediary may reach target when intended to be heard)
Commonwealth v. Meier, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 278 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (intermediary communication sufficient if intended to reach the target)
Commonwealth v. Furst, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 283 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (illustrates limits on bystander communications in threat cases)
Commonwealth v. Troy T., 54 Mass. App. Ct. 520 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (no intent to communicate when intermediary merely overheard statements)
Commonwealth v. Velasquez, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 697 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (statutory interpretation regarding 'otherwise' in §13B context)
Commonwealth v. Cormier, 427 Mass. 446 (Mass. 1998) (limits on appellate correction for charge errors after corrections)
Commonwealth v. Hesketh, 386 Mass. 153 (Mass. 1982) (no witness may testify to defendant's guilt or innocence)