Commonwealth v. Paquette (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-169-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12028 COMMONWEALTH vs. RAYMOND ZACHARY PAQUETTE. Hampshire. April 4, 2016. – October 27, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, Hines, JJ.[1] Misleading a Police Officer. Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 24, 2014. The cases were tried before C. Jeffrey Kinder, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Thomas D. Frothingham for the defendant. Steven E. Gagne, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Yale Yechiel N. Robinson, pro se, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. This case considers whether any lie to police during a criminal investigation “misleads” police in violation of G. L. c. 268, § 13B, the witness intimidation statute. The statute prohibits, as relevant here, “willfully . . . mislead[ing] . . . [a] police officer.” The defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury on two indictments charging violations of that prohibition, at two separate interviews with police, during their investigation of a fight at a party he hosted in May, 2014. On direct appellate review, the defendant argues primarily that the jury were not instructed correctly regarding the elements of § 13B, and that his motions for required findings of not guilty should have been allowed. We conclude that the instruction regarding the “mislead[ing]” element of § 13B was incorrect. We further conclude that, if the jury had been instructed correctly, the evidence would have been sufficient to allow the jury to find the defendant guilty of violating § 13B at the first interview, but not at the second interview. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand the matter to the Superior Court for entry of a required finding of not guilty on the second indictment, alleging that the defendant misled police at the second interview.[2] The defendant may be retried on the first indictment, concerning statements he made to police during the first interview. Background. We recite the facts the jury could have found, reserving certain details for later discussion. On the night of May 3, 2014, the defendant and his sister hosted a party at their father’s house in Westhampton. Two of the guests, Patrick Bousquet and Tyler Spath, became involved in an argument in the kitchen after a remark by Spath that Bousquet perceived as an insult to his girl friend. […]