Civil Rights Violations in Massachusetts | G.L. c. 265 § 37

July 30th, 2018

Posted By

G.L. c. 265, § 37 — Using Force or Threat of Force to Interfere with Constitutional or Legal Rights

Massachusetts has a criminal statute that makes it illegal to use force or the threat of force to willfully interfere with another person’s constitutional or legal rights. The law is G.L. c. 265, § 37. It applies to private individuals as well as people acting under color of law, and it is sometimes charged in cases involving alleged hate-motivated conduct or interference with protected activities.

This article explains what the statute covers, what the Commonwealth must prove, how it differs from related federal laws, real case examples, the penalties, and common defense issues.

The Statutory Offense

G.L. c. 265, § 37 states that no person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with, or oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the constitution or laws of the Commonwealth or by the constitution or laws of the United States.

What the Commonwealth Must Prove

To convict, the Commonwealth must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt:

That the alleged victim was exercising or enjoying a right or privilege protected by the Massachusetts Constitution, the United States Constitution, or the laws of either;
That the defendant injured, intimidated, interfered with, oppressed, or threatened the exercise of that right, or attempted to do so;
That the defendant did so by using force or by threatening to use force; and
That the defendant acted willfully.

Key Definitions

A few terms in the statute have specific meanings:

Force means physical force directed against a person or property. Even a small amount of force can be enough.
Threat of force is an expression of an intention to use force that would appear likely to a reasonable person in the victim’s position.
Intimidate means to put in fear.
Interfere means to hinder or meddle in another’s affairs.
Oppress means to use authority or power abusively or excessively.
Willfully means the defendant acted with the specific purpose of interfering with the victim’s enjoyment of the protected right, or because the victim had exercised that right.

What Rights Are Protected

The statute covers rights secured by the Massachusetts Constitution, the United States Constitution, and the laws of either. Examples include the right to equal protection, the right to use public streets and sidewalks free from discrimination, the right to attend school without discrimination, and employment rights free from discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or ancestry. A person does not need to know that the law protects the right in order for the statute to apply.

How Massachusetts Law Differs from Federal Civil Rights Statutes

Massachusetts law differs from the main federal criminal civil-rights statutes in three important ways:

It applies whether or not the defendant was acting under color of law, so it covers private individuals as well as government actors;
It requires proof of force or threat of force and is limited to specific prohibited acts (injure, intimidate, interfere, oppress, threaten); and
It requires that the violation be willful.

Case Examples

A few published decisions help illustrate how the statute is applied:

Commonwealth v. Stephens, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 117 (1987)

This is the leading early decision construing § 37. The defendant was convicted of violating the civil rights of three Asian (Cambodian) persons. Evidence showed he sought them out, used racial slurs, broke windows in their home, punched one victim in the face, and threw a stick at another. The Appeals Court held that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague and that the evidence was sufficient to show the defendant willfully interfered, by force, with the victims’ rights to live peaceably in their homes and to use public sidewalks and streets without harassment or assault. The court also noted that the civil-rights interference need not be the defendant’s sole or predominant purpose.

Later Applications Involving Bias-Motivated Violence

Courts have repeatedly upheld § 37 convictions in cases involving physical attacks on members of minority groups. In one Appeals Court decision, defendants who physically and verbally attacked a group of Cambodian youths were convicted under the statute; the court again rejected a vagueness challenge and approved jury instructions that the law protects personal security under both the state and federal constitutions. Similar charges have been brought (often alongside G.L. c. 265, § 39 hate-crime counts) in cases of group assaults at parties or in public where race or ethnicity was a motivating factor and bodily injury resulted.

Practical Takeaway from the Cases

These decisions show that § 37 is most often used when force or the threat of force is combined with interference with a clearly protected right—especially the right to personal security and the peaceful use of one’s home or public spaces. Bias motivation can supply strong evidence of willfulness, but the statute itself does not require proof of racial or other animus as an element.

Penalties

A conviction under § 37 is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. If bodily injury results, the maximum rises to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.

Common Defense Approaches

Defense counsel often examine:

Whether the alleged victim was actually exercising a protected right;
Whether force or a true threat of force was used;
Whether the defendant acted willfully with the specific purpose of interfering with the protected right;
Whether the right in question was clearly delineated and applicable under the circumstances; and
The overall context of the encounter and the credibility of the accounts given by the parties.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the defendant have to be a government official?

No. The Massachusetts statute expressly applies whether or not the defendant was acting under color of law.

Is a small amount of force enough?

Yes. The statute does not require a particular level of force. Even minimal physical force directed against a person or property can satisfy the element.

Must the victim be completely stopped from exercising the right?

No. It is enough that the victim was hampered or impeded in the free exercise of the right.

Why Experienced Counsel Matters

Civil-rights charges often arise in emotionally charged situations and can carry both criminal and reputational consequences. Careful analysis of the protected right, the use of force or threat, and the required willfulness is essential to a fair resolution.

Contact Criminal Defense Attorney William J. Barabino

If you or a loved one has been charged with a civil rights violation, early legal help is important. The Law Office of William J. Barabino provides focused criminal defense throughout Massachusetts.

Call 781-393-5900 for a confidential consultation.

Visit williambarabino.com for more information on criminal charges and defenses.

Free Consultation