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.
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.