Instruction 7.365, Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court

INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING AN INVESTIGATOR

IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

G.L. c. 268, § 13B

This instruction is narrowly tailored for the offense of Intentionally Misleading an Investigator in a

Criminal Investigation pursuant to G.L. 268, § 13B. This instruction may be adapted for use with

other persons or proceedings listed in the statute. For the general instruction of Intimidating a

Witness, Juror, Court Official or Law Enforcement Officer pursuant to G.L. 268, § 13B, see

Instruction 7.360.

The defendant is charged with intentionally misleading a (police

officer) (federal agent) (investigator) in a criminal investigation. In order to

prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove

three things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: The defendant willfully misled another person, either directly or

indirectly;

Second: The other person was a (police officer) (federal agent)

(investigator); and

Third: That the defendant did so with the intent to (impede) (obstruct)

(delay) (prevent) or otherwise interfere with a criminal investigation.

To prove the first element, the Commonwealth must prove that the

defendant willfully, either directly or indirectly, misled another person. An

act is misleading where it is reasonably likely to lead investigators to

pursue or refrain from pursuing a course of investigation substantially

different from the course they may have otherwise taken; in other words,

send them in the wrong direction or on a “wild goose chase.”

The Commonwealth is not required to prove that the defendant’s act

actually misled the person, only that it reasonably could have done so.

Commonwealth v. Paquette, 475 Mass 793, 800, 802 (2016).

To prove the second element, the Commonwealth must prove the

person misled was (a police officer) (an investigator) (a federal agent).

For the definition of an investigator, see supplemental instruction 1.

To prove the third element, the Commonwealth must prove that the

defendant specifically intended to impede, obstruct, delay, prevent or

otherwise interfere with a criminal investigation.

Further instruction on specific intent.

Obviously, it is impossible to look directly

into the defendant’s mind. But in our

everyday affairs, we often decide from the actions of others what their state

of mind is. In this case, you may examine the defendant’s actions and

words, and all of the surrounding circumstances, to help you determine

what (his) (her) intent was at the time.

If the Commonwealth has proved each of the three elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt, you should return a verdict of guilty. If

any element of the crime has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt,

you must find the defendant not guilty.

SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. “Investigator.” An “investigator” is defined by our law to

mean an individual or group of individuals lawfully authorized by

(a department or agency of the federal government, or any

political subdivision thereof) (or) (a department or agency of the

Commonwealth) (or) (a political subdivision of the

Commonwealth, such as a city or town) to conduct or engage in

an investigation of, prosecution for, or defense of an alleged

violation of law in the course of his or her official duties.

G.L. c. 268, § 13B(2)