Commonwealth v. Tejeda
476 Mass. 817
| Mass. | 2017Background
- Officer observed a man attempting to buy heroin; when ordered to show his hand, a small plastic bag of brown powder fell from the man’s hand.
- As the officer took that man into custody, Tejeda returned, picked up the plastic bag, and swallowed it in full view of the officer; the bag was not recovered.
- Tejeda was charged under G. L. c. 268, § 13B (misleading a police officer) and also with heroin possession under G. L. c. 94C, § 34.
- At trial court, a judge dismissed the § 13B count; the Appeals Court vacated the dismissal, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted further review.
- Key legal question: whether nonverbal conduct (swallowing the bag) was ‘‘misleading’’ under § 13B—i.e., intended to create a false impression and likely to send investigators in a materially wrong direction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether swallowing the bag was "misleading" under G. L. c. 268, § 13B | Tejeda’s act was a trick or device to conceal evidence and thus misled/impeded the investigation | The act did not create a false impression or send officers astray; it merely concealed evidence | Court held it was not "misleading" under § 13B because it did not intend to or reasonably cause investigators to pursue a materially different course |
| Whether nonverbal conduct can satisfy § 13B’s "mislead" element | § 13B can cover nonverbal tricks or schemes that mislead investigators | Nonverbal conduct must still be calculated to create a false impression that diverts investigation | Court reaffirmed nonverbal conduct can qualify only if it is intended and likely to lead investigators in the wrong direction |
| Whether intent to impede alone satisfies § 13B | Impeding (e.g., destroying or hiding evidence) equates to misleading for § 13B purposes | Misleading is a distinct element separate from impeding; both required | Court held that equating impeding with misleading would ignore statutory language; both elements required |
| Applicability of federal tampering definition (18 U.S.C. § 1515) | The federal definition’s ‘‘trick, scheme, or device’’ subsection supports finding misleading here | The federal definition is circular and requires an actual misleading effect; does not help where no false impression occurred | Court rejected using subsection (E) to expand § 13B here because the conduct did not mislead as required |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Humberto H., 466 Mass. 562 (discusses probable cause standard for complaints)
- Commonwealth v. Roman, 414 Mass. 642 (establishes probable cause framing)
- Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 464 Mass. 365 (relied on federal witness-tampering definition in interpreting § 13B)
- Commonwealth v. Paquette, 475 Mass. 793 (clarified "misleads" requires a knowing act calculated to lead another astray)
- Commonwealth v. Morse, 468 Mass. 360 (explained § 13B requires both misleading and impeding elements)
- Commonwealth v. Disler, 451 Mass. 216 (counsels against statutory constructions that ignore language)