Bill
S 1145
The bill broadens the definition of strangulation to include knowingly or recklessly impeding breathing or blood flow by throat/neck pressure, even without visible injury or intent
Note on source materials
- The materials provided include two different bills both labeled “S 1145” (an Idaho education bill and a Massachusetts criminal-law bill). This summary focuses on the Massachusetts measure titled “An Act relative to the definition of strangulation,” consistent with the title and the text excerpted from Chapter 265, Section 15D.
Purpose and intent
- The bill amends the statutory definition of “strangulation” to clarify and broaden the conduct that constitutes the offense. The change is intended to make prosecutions for strangulation easier in cases where there is no visible injury or no proof of intent to kill or to cause prolonged injury.
Key provision (textual change)
- Amends Section 15D of Chapter 265 by replacing existing language with the following definition:
- “Strangulation” means intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of a person by applying pressure to the throat or neck, regardless of whether that conduct results in any visible injury or whether there is any intent to kill or protractedly injure the victim.
What the bill changes
- Expands the statutory mens rea covered to include intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly impeding breathing or blood circulation by pressure to throat/neck.
- Removes any requirement that the conduct result in visible injury for the definition to apply.
- Removes any requirement that there be an intent to kill or to cause protracted injury for the conduct to qualify as “strangulation.”
Who would be affected
- Criminal defendants charged with strangulation or related offenses in Massachusetts.
- Prosecutors and defense attorneys (changes evidentiary and charging considerations).
- Law enforcement and first responders (investigative and evidence-collection practices).
- Victims of domestic/intimate-partner violence and sexual assault — the change may increase prosecutors’ ability to bring charges in cases lacking visible trauma.
Practical and legal impacts
- Lowers the evidentiary threshold for charging strangulation where physical marks are absent, potentially increasing prosecutions and convictions in non-bruise cases.
- May require updated training for police, prosecutors, and medical personnel on identifying and documenting signs/symptoms of strangulation that aren’t visible externally (e.g., voice changes, difficulty breathing, neurological symptoms).
- Could increase demand for forensic and medical examinations, victim services, and courtroom resources.
Procedural / timeline notes
- The bill text in the packet was filed as Senate Docket No. 1734 and presented by Senator Robyn K. Kennedy (First Worcester). It was referred to the Judiciary Committee (per the packet).
- Exact legislative status and next steps should be confirmed with the Massachusetts Legislature’s docket for this bill number and session year, as the provided materials include mixed provenance and dates.
Limitations
- The excerpt amends only the statutory definition; it does not, in the provided text, change penalties, sentencing ranges, or other related offenses. Those effects depend on how the amended definition is applied within existing criminal statutes and charging practices.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
