State v. Lamantia

Summary

The dissent would conclude that the evidence was insufficient to convict Jasmine Lamantia of witness tampering because the state did not prove that she believed an official proceeding was probably about to occur or that she intended to induce false testimony at such a proceeding. It reasons that the statutory text, related tampering statutes, subsequent legislative amendments, and legislative history show that the witness-tampering statute does not criminalize every effort to influence a police investigation. The dissent would reverse the witness-tampering conviction and remand for entry of a not-guilty judgment.