102 Mass. App. Ct. 1116
Mass. App. Ct.2023Background
- Defendant Bellard was jailed on a domestic assault charge and had a trial scheduled in early August 2016.
- Less than two weeks before trial, he made two recorded phone calls from the house of correction to the alleged victim.
- Commonwealth charged Bellard under G. L. c. 268, § 13B (b) for attempting to bribe/intimidate an anticipated witness, pursuing a bribery theory (offer/promise of anything of value).
- At a jury‑waived trial the judge listened to the recordings, denied defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty, and convicted him under § 13B.
- Defendant appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence — principally that he conveyed nothing "of value" and lacked the specific intent to influence the witness; the Appeals Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did defendant convey a gift, offer, or promise of anything of value under § 13B? | Commonwealth: recordings and context show defendant promised an end to the proceedings and appealed to the victim's interests — a thing the victim valued. | Bellard: no evidence he conveyed anything of value to the victim. | Held: Sufficient evidence for a jury‑waived factfinder to infer an offer/promise of value (victim wanted proceedings to stop). |
| Did defendant act with specific intent to influence/impede a witness in the upcoming criminal proceeding? | Commonwealth: timing, content (references to trial date, lawyer advice), and appeals to vulnerabilities show intent to induce noncooperation. | Bellard: insufficient proof of corrupt/specific intent to impede the prosecution. | Held: Sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer specific intent to influence the victim not to participate; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Paquette, 475 Mass. 793 (2016) (use ordinary meaning of "value" consistent with statutory purpose)
- Commonwealth v. Morse, 468 Mass. 360 (2014) (statutory violation requires specific intent to impede or interfere)
- Scaccia v. State Ethics Comm'n, 431 Mass. 351 (2000) (bribery requires corrupt intent / unlawful quid pro quo)
- Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 480 Mass. 645 (2018) (when findings rest on documentary/audio materials, review is de novo)
- Commonwealth v. Ruano, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 98 (2015) (offers that are perceived as valuable by recipient can satisfy "anything of value")
- Commonwealth v. Robinson, 444 Mass. 102 (2005) (intent to influence may be inferred from place, time, and circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Pugh, 462 Mass. 482 (2012) (distinguishing deference to witness credibility from de novo review of documentary evidence)