context: In many cases, including the three just cited, the Commonwealth alleges the victim is both the target of the communicated threat and the target of the threatened crime. The Appeals Court has concluded in several cases that a threat may be communicated to an intended target by way of a third-party intermediary, but only where it is shown that the defendant intended the threat to reach the target.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 61 Mass. App. Ct. 433, 434
citation_a.parenthetical: although bystander rather than defendant relayed threat to target, evidence showed defendant intended it to be heard by target, or reasonably should have known it would be conveyed to her
citation_a.sentence: See Commonwealth v. Maiden, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 433, 434 (2004) (although bystander rather than defendant relayed threat to target, evidence showed defendant intended it to be heard by target, or reasonably should have known it would be conveyed to her); Commonwealth v. Meier, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 278, 282 (2002) (defendant inferrably intended that intermediary communicate threat).
citation_b.signal: contra
citation_b.identifier: 54 Mass. App. Ct. 520, 524-528
citation_b.parenthetical: no intent to communicate threat where intermediary merely overheard statements not intended for alleged victim
citation_b.sentence: Contrast Commonwealth v. Furst, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 283, 284-285 (2002) (evidence of threatening to commit crime insufficient where defendant intended that third-party intermediary assist in murder plans, not that he communicate murder threat to intended victim); Commonwealth v. Troy T., 54 Mass. App. Ct. 520, 524-528 (2002) (no intent to communicate threat where intermediary merely overheard statements not intended for alleged victim).