Panel examines sufficiency of witness‑intimidation evidence in Commonwealth v. Sanderson

The Appeals Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Robert Sanderson Sr., Docket No. 2025‑0495 (partially impounded), on whether the evidence supporting two alleged instances of witness intimidation met the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard.

Defense counsel Elizabeth Lazar focused on two incidents the Commonwealth relied on at trial: a July 13, 2021 assault where the victim later lied to medical personnel, and an August 2 wellness‑check incident in which the defendant used abusive language after police arrived. Lazar argued the Commonwealth failed to show the defendant acted with the specific intent required by the witness‑intimidation statute to influence the victim as a witness rather than to control or abuse within a toxic relationship.

ADA Alyssa Almeda replied that the jury could reasonably infer intent to influence from the totality of circumstances: the July assault, the victim’s rehearsed explanation on the way to the hospital, the victim’s subsequent untruthful account to medical staff and conduct at the hospital, and the August encounter’s context (temporal proximity and a pattern of abuse) indicated the defendant acted to prevent truthful reporting. Almeda also said a Section 35 (civil commitment) concern and the possibility of other proceedings made the defendant’s reactions reasonably likely to be aimed at interfering with investigative or legal processes.

Justices queried whether reversal on one incident would require resentencing or a new trial because the jury returned a general verdict. Counsel agreed that if one incident lacked sufficient evidence, the remedy could require remand for resentencing or further proceedings. After questioning, the panel took the case under advisement and recessed for a scheduled break.