State v. Clarke
Annotate this CaseAfter a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of tampering with a witness, and on that basis, of violating a condition of release. Defendant appealed, arguing that the indictment was insufficient to inform him of the tampering charge and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction on that charge because he did not “expressly threaten the witness” and because the witness did not feel threatened by him. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) because the statute allows a conviction for tampering with a witness based only on a defendant’s attempt to induce the witness not to testify against him, Defendant’s first argument was without merit; and (2) the remainder of Defendant’s arguments were not persuasive.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.