What does intimidating a participant in a legal process mean

Intimidating a participant in legal process krs

while that may not comport with the ordinary understanding of “participant in the legal process,” since it does not require that the person already be involved in that process, the legislature's decision to define the phrase at issue excludes that ordinary understanding. the common understanding of “judge” would be a sitting judge, but the judge in question does not yet have to be involved in the legal process at the time of the crime. garner, reading law: the interpretation of legal texts 226–28 (2012) (“when ․ a definitional section says that a word ‘means' something, the clear import is that this is its only meaning․ [t]he established meaning of a word must yield to the statutory definition . trial, appellant was convicted of first-degree sodomy, second-degree wanton endangerment, intimidating a participant in the legal process, third-degree terroristic threatening, and being a first-degree pfo.”but it is certainly apparent to a person who commits a crime that the victim may be a witness against him in a legal proceeding.(2)(a), but it does so to show that a specific case does not yet have to exist for the crime of intimidating a participant in the legal process to occur.

What is intimidating a participant in legal process

, other cases make it appear that “legal process” at minimum requires some significant step in a criminal action or civil suit, such as filings with a court which begin a case. second, appellant argues the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict on the charge of intimidating a witness in the legal process. being raped (as in moreland ), or being chased by a rapist with a gun (as in the instant case), is not synonymous with being a participant in “the legal process. the amendment was thus intended to expand the scope of the former witness-intimidation statute to include other participants in the legal system. added definitions further exclude the intuitive reading of the statute because they suggest that a person is a “participant in the legal process” because of the participant's role in the overall legal system (or, as with witnesses, the participant's potential role), not because of their participation in a specific legal action., there must be at least some reasonable nexus with the legal process, even if a case is not yet initiated.

  • Intimidating a participant in legal process ky

    .2005) (raising the issue but declining to decide whether a police department's internal investigation process which had not yet resulted in any charges came within the definition of “legal process” under krs 524. in the same 2002 amendments, which gave us the definition of “participant in the legal process” that includes judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and jurors, the general assembly deleted the statutes criminalizing harassing a witness, 2002 ky.(3) intimidating a participant in the legal process is a class d felony. gist of moreland has nothing to do with whether the victims were or might become participants in an “official proceeding. its analysis of “the legal process” deserves our attention:we do not agree that if the jury believed barefield knew smith was attempting to call the police, it follows he believed smith was a participant in the legal process.” the part of the statute at issue in moreland provided:a person is guilty of intimidating a witness when, by use of physical force or a threat of physical force directed to a witness or a person he believes may he called as a witness in any official proceeding, he ․ influences, or attempts to influence, the testimony of that person․krs 524.
  • EDMONDS v. COMMONWEALTH | FindLaw

    first, the general assembly added the definition of “participant in the legal process,” which “means any judge, prosecutor, attorney defending a criminal case, juror, or witness and includes members of the participant's immediate family. as a matter of policy, if the legal process could be invoked, and a defendant intends to prevent a victim from participating in the legal process, then this statute can apply.), the kentucky supreme court defined the term “legal process” for purposes of krs 505.) (discussing legal process in the context of the tort of abuse of process and equating legal process with the initiation of a legal action such as through the filing of a lawsuit or obtaining an indictment).”there remains one other reason that a directed verdict on the charge of intimidating a participant in the legal process was necessary in this case..  really, the general assembly consolidated what had previously been several offenses spread over several provisions in krs chapter 524 into a single offense”intimidating a participant in the legal process”.
  • 1free photo dating sites australia no credit card
  • Police: Madden showed no remorse for online threats | News

    it was meant as a statement that the victim and appellant had not previously engaged in anal intercourse before the sexual assault at issue in this case, and not that anal intercourse did not occur during the course of the assault.(2)(a) states “[a]n official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense,” this provision simply means that the defendant's belief need not reflect factual accuracy. course, an argument can be made that delinking the crime from a victim's present participation in a legal action could lead to absurd consequences, especially with respect to “witnesses,” since everyone is potentially a witness in a future legal proceeding.” so, while the current existence of an “official proceeding” is not an element of the crime, the contemporaneous existence of “the legal process” most certainly is: “a person is guilty of intimidating a participant in the legal process when [he threatens or uses force against] a person he believes to be a participant in the legal process.. to be “a participant in the legal process” when he chased after her with a gun. the evidence presented by the commonwealth would not render it unreasonable for a jury to find that appellant intimidated a participant in the legal process by hindering or delaying j.
  • Who is drew seeley dating 2016
  • Islamic new dating site in nigeria
  • Free promo codes for dating sites

524.040 Intimidating a participant in the legal process. (1) A person

Judge sets million bond for suspect in Allen Co. girl's murder

”a proper reading of moreland and the proper resolution of this case depends upon the recognition that “the legal process” referred to in krs 524. moreland, the court found that the amendment amounted to a fundamental shift in the purpose of the statute, which post–2002 “requires the accused threaten a person he believes to be a participant in the legal process,” 322 s. as such, the commonwealth was required to show that appellantby use of physical force or a threat directed to a person he believes to be a participant in the legal process ․ [h]inder[ed], delay[ed], or prevent[ed] the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of information relating to the possible commission of an offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole or release pending judicial proceedings.” thus, a prosecutor cannot say that any threat against a potential witness, or any other “participant,” is covered by the statute; the threat must be linked to intimidating the victim because of his or her role in the legal process. of course, the statute refers at times to “official proceedings,” referring to an individual case, as it does in krs 524., brian dewayne edmonds, appeals his convictions for first-degree sodomy, intimidating a participant in the legal process, second-degree wanton endangerment, third-degree terroristic threatening, and being a persistent felony offender (pfo) in the first degree.

SECOND QUARTER 2016

indeed, this is supported by the fact that “participant in the legal process” is defined in part to include “any judge, prosecutor, [or] attorney defending a criminal case. this incorrect method of analysis is evident in the common practice of leaping to a single (and usually the most obvious) hearsay exception and, upon seeing that the proof does not meet the exception, assuming the proof is wholly inadmissible, simply because it does not meet that single exception. 21 that said police "got the wrong man" and that if his father "does life u will do life watching ur back. § 659(e)'s definition of “legal process” as including “any writ, order, summons, or other similar process in the nature of garnishment”); sprint communications co. instead, it is about a “participant in the legal process,” krs 524.” the statute now reads that a person is guilty of “intimidating a participant in the legal process when, by use of physical force or a threat of physical force to a person he believes to be a participant in the legal process, he or she ․ [commits one of several acts].

What does intimidating a participant in a legal process mean

That's probably not the way to get a light sentence Woman faces

no doubt, this subsection was included in the statute because the intuitive reading of the rest of the statute suggests the victim must already be involved in the legal system.(1) does not pertain to a pending or future “official proceeding,” but it does indeed apply to “the legal process. it includes, for example, activities associated with the service of summonses, writs, subpoenas, and warrants, and other extra-judicial interactions with legal authorities such as a terry-stop/frisk situation, a custodial interrogation, or voluntary interview of a witness or suspect, a traffic stop, administration of a breathalyzer test, and so on. “witness” is defined to include a person who “may be called” as a witness, and that definition is included in the definition of “participant in the legal process,” krs 524. does not require an actual or imminent “official proceeding,” but it does require some level of formality that is lacking from one's mere presence as a victim at the scene of an ongoing crime.. was a participant in the legal process, and cites our decision in moreland v.

APPELLANT v. APPELLEE | FindLaw

Obstruction of Justice legal definition of Obstruction of Justice

, by simply substituting the definitions in question, “participant in the legal process” becomes “witness.” moreland rests upon the premise that the commission of a rape is not a “legal process” and so the victims were not participants in a “legal process” when moreland threatened to kill them if they called the police. appellant does complain about one specific instance of edlin's repetition of a statement made by the victim. second, the general assembly added a definition of “witness,” which “means any person who may be called to testify in an official proceeding, has been called to testify in an official proceeding, is testifying in an official proceeding, or who has testified in an official proceeding. those persons, as judicial officers or licensed attorneys (and thus officers of the court) are always participants in the legal process, by nature of their roles. in fact, the holding in moreland rests upon its recognition that “the legal process” is not the same as “an official proceeding.

CHAPTER 251 (HB 571)

Legal Term Glossary

overruling moreland, the majority now holds that every crime-in-progress is, in effect, a “legal process.” at stake in moreland was whether, at the time of moreland's threats, his victims were then and there involved in “the legal process. provides:(1) a person is guilty of intimidating a participant in the legal process when, by use of physical force or a threat directed to a person he believes to be a participant in the legal process, he or she:(a) influences, or attempts to influence, the testimony, vote, decision, or opinion of that person;(b) induces, or attempts to induce, that person to avoid legal process summoning him or her to testify;(c) induces, or attempts to induce, that person to absent himself or herself from an official proceeding to which he has been legally summoned;(d) induces, or attempts to induce, that person to withhold a record, document, or other object from an official proceeding;(e) induces, or attempts to induce, that person to alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or(f) hinders, delays, or prevents the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of information relating to the possible commission of an offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole or release pending judicial proceedings. “the legal process” does not encompass an ongoing crime, and so edmonds's victim was not a participant in “the legal process” when edmonds chased after her, and he could not have reasonably believed her to be so. i also reject the majority's assertion that in moreland we mistakenly conflated the terms “legal process” and “official proceeding.(2)(a) and, consequently, was not aware that the current statute provides that one may be guilty of intimidating a participant in the legal process even when no legal proceeding was pending or imminent.

Violation Codes

the net effect of subsection (2) is to clarify that under this version of the statute, there does not have to be an existing legal proceeding in order for the statute to apply.(4) in order for a person to be convicted of a violation of this section, the act against a participant in the legal process or the immediate family of a participant in the legal process shall be related to the performance of a duty or role played by the participant in the legal process.(4), which states that “[i]n order for a person to be convicted of a violation of this section, the act against a participant in the legal process or the immediate family of a participant in the legal process shall be related to the performance of a duty or role played by the participant in the legal process. the basic change was a shift in use of a future tense (“may be called as a witness”) to the present tense (“to be a participant”).” what is occurring is a crime, which is not “the legal process,” and if it is a “process” at all, it is an illegal process. if there is no chance of an official proceeding occurring (because, for example, the defendant has not yet committed a crime before the threat and does not plan to commit a crime other than the threat), then it is hard to see how the threatened victim “may be called to testify.

EDMONDS v. COMMONWEALTH | FindLaw

Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia

. 121, 126 (1934), meaning that the definition can be substituted for the term. the list is long and varied, but what is certain to me is that the occurrence of a crime is not what the general assembly had in mind when it used the phrase, “the legal process., for example, the statute also includes “judges” within the definition of “participant in the legal process. in moreland, we held the defendant, a serial rapist who threatened to kill his victims if they contacted police, was entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal as to all of his convictions for intimidating a participant in the legal process. following moreland, the court concluded that barefield could not be convicted of intimidating a participant in the legal process because the victim was not involved in the legal process at the time he destroyed her phone. does not define “legal process,” it requires more action than just reporting a crime, seeking assistance from the police or attempting to initiate a police investigation.

Police: Madden showed no remorse for online threats | News

OSuprtint (Court of 7,fintfurkv

” consequently, almost any crime involving a criminal/victim confrontation will be tethered to the additional felony of intimidating a participant in the legal process because the victims of such crimes are typically intimidated.(2) specifically anticipates that the crime can occur before specific legal proceedings have begun. mistake in moreland was in part in equating “the legal process” with an individualized case or “official proceeding.(2)(a) shows, the statute is not about a participant in a specific legal proceeding. (“participants in the legal process”) include “witnesses,” which includes people who “may be called” to testify. that the statements repeated by the sane were consistent with the victim's trial testimony does not mean they automatically fall under the rule discussed in dickerson and smith.

Song seung heon and song hye kyo dating

Intimidation - Wikipedia

, 20, is charged with 16 counts of intimidating a participant in the legal process and 16 counts of third-degree terroristic threatening., in that the statute now “require[s] that the perpetrator believe[ ] the victim is participating in the legal process at the time the offense is committed,” id. definition of “legal process” in other contexts provides support for barefield's position that calling 911 as a matter of law is not an initiation of the legal process. the offense is now called “intimidating a participant in the legal process. no legal proceedings had been initiated at the time of the attacks in moreland, the court held it was “impossible to conclude that [the defendant] believed any of the three victims ‘to be a participant in the legal process' at the time of the offenses since no legal process yet existed, nor could appellant have believed that any legal process had been initiated.. directed–verdict issueappellant also argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict on the charge of intimidating a witness in the legal process.

На главную страницу Sitemap