Opinion ID: 2083154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subornation of Perjury.

Text: Borans was convicted of subornation of perjury in connection with the testimony of Jack Stone before the grand jury on July 13 and July 15, 1976. See G.L.c. 268, § 2. Borans argues that the judge should have directed a verdict of acquittal on the indictment charging him with subornation of perjury because: (1) Stone retracted his perjured testimony; and (2) Borans merely counseled Stone to `stick to the story' that he had done the work for Si Associates. [20] We think the judge correctly denied Borans' motion. Borans argues that he cannot be convicted of subornation of perjury because Stone subsequently retracted his perjured testimony before the grand jury. According to Borans, Stone's subsequent voluntary appearance before the Grand Jury wherein he recanted his previous misstatements while the Grand Jury was still considering the Revere High School matter, is sufficient to insulate him [Stone] from a perjury conviction. The short answer to Borans' argument is that the argument is factually inaccurate. Stone did not recant his testimony before the grand jury concerning the issue of whether Stone had actually performed three thousand dollars' worth of services for Si Associates. Indeed, subsequent to Stone's testimony before the grand jury he was indicted for perjury. [21] Far from being insulate[d] ... from a perjury conviction, Stone ultimately pleaded guilty to the charge. [22] Thus Borans' argument concerning Stone's alleged recantation of his perjured testimony cannot prevail. Finally, Borans asserts that there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that Borans actually suborned Stone's perjured testimony. On appeal, Borans admits that he counseled, and advised, Stone to stick to the story but claims that such evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for subornation of perjury. In Commonwealth v. Douglass, 5 Met. 241, 245 (1842), we indicated that [t]o constitute subornation of perjury, the party charged must have procured the commission of the perjury, by inciting, instigating, or persuading the guilty party to commit the crime. We concluded that there must be solicitation on the part of the defendant. We need not decide whether a course of action which involves only the suggestion of a course of perjury, however reprehensible, would support a conviction for subornation of perjury under G.L.c. 268, § 2. Here, Borans' counselling extended well within the range of persuasion, and we are not required to draw such a fine line. Stone testified that Borans repeatedly told him that if he would stick to the story, Stone would not be in trouble. On the day before Stone perjured himself, Stone met with Borans at Borans' office. Borans told Stone to stick to the story, that you did consulting work for Si Associates and there'll be no problems and there is nothing to worry about. Moreover, Borans also told Stone that Sharigian would corroborate Stone's false testimony. These facts are sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that Borans actually procured Stone's perjury by persuading him to testify falsely before the grand jury. See Commonwealth v. Fine, 321 Mass. 299, 301 (1947) (defendant advised witness to stick to ... [his] story and you are all right). There was no error in the denial of the defendant's motion.