Articles Posted in Assault Crimes

Published on:

By

high-school-woes-1173688-mAccording to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a group of ten freshman and sophomore students got into a “brawl” at Framingham High School last week. School officials stated that they did not know what led to the fight and insisted that there was no longstanding feud between the students who were involved. Four of the students were injured, including one who was taken to the hospital to the hospital as a precaution. A Framingham police officer indicated that the police were reviewing surveillance footage as well as cell phone videos taken by others in an attempt to determine who or what caused the fight. Although criminal charges have not yet been issued, the police department indicated that the incident was still under investigation and that “it could possibly lead to criminal charges.”

If the students are indeed criminally charged, it seems likely that they will be charges of simple assault and battery under G. L. c. 265, 13A, as the article makes no mention of any weapons being used. For the Commonwealth is issue charges and ultimately convict the student(s) for assault and battery, it would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) that the student(s) touched the person of the alleged victim(s) without having any right or excuse for doing so; (2) that the student(s) intended to touch the alleged victim(s); and (3) that the touching was either likely to cause bodily harm to the alleged victim(s) or was done without the alleged victim or victims’ consent. The touching must be intentional in the sense that the student(s) consciously and deliberately intended the touching to occur and that it was not merely accidental or negligent. However, the student(s) need not specifically have intended to cause injury to the alleged victim(s).

While the details of the incident are still not entirely clear, it seems the Commonwealth may have difficulty proving its case. Assuming that this was a mutual fight in that the students were all fighting against one another, as opposed to certain parties simply being assaulted and certain parties doing the assaulting, all of the students involved would presumably be cross-complainants and have 5th Amendment privileges against self-incrimination. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

blade-1-1000056-mAccording to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Framingham woman reported to police that her drug dealer robbed her at knife point last week. The article specifically states that the woman had arranged to buy marijuana from her dealer, whom she identified as “Florida.” The woman stated that when she showed up to the buy location, Florida allegedly took out a black pocket knife and told her to give him her money. The woman then reportedly gave him $20. According to the woman, Florida began to walk away, but then turned and charged at her with the knife. She called the police to report the robbery as she was running away. The woman was unable to provide the police with Florida’s actual name.

Even if the police are able to identify and apprehend Florida, however, it seems unlikely that they will have much of a case against him. Specifically, the woman appears to have a Fifth Amendment privilege. The Fifth Amendment states that a person cannot be compelled to testify against herself if that testimony is potentially incriminating and/or could result in criminal prosecution. The woman, by her own admission, appears to have engaged in some sort of agreement to purchase drugs. Because the woman could potentially face criminal charges herself, she appears to have a Fifth Amendment privilege and could therefore refuse to testify. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

cigarette-sticks-1394750-mAccording to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, two teenagers were arrested this past week after allegedly robbing a gas station in Marlborough. The article states that two men wearing masks entered a Shell gas station on Lincoln Street shortly after 3am this past Thursday. One of the two men reportedly approached the clerk, pointed a handgun at him, and demanded cash while the other stood as a lookout at the door. The two men walked away with $340 in cash, several boxes of Newport cigarettes, and the clerk’s cellular telephone. Witnesses and the clerk provided a description of the two men to police – one was described as 6’ tall and the other as slightly shorter, both with thin builds.

Several hours after the robbery, the Marlborough police served a warrant for a parole violation on a seventeen year-old juvenile at an apartment on Lincoln Street. While serving the warrant, officers noticed that the juvenile matched the description of one of the two robbers. Additionally, officers observed several boxes of Newport cigarettes in plain view. Another man inside the apartment reportedly matched the description of the second suspect. Both the juvenile and the other man were arrested for armed robbery under G. L. c. 265, § 17.

Fortunately, both the juvenile and the other man appear to have strong arguments that they were not the people that were involved in the robbery. In particular, the suspects were masked and the only description provided was height and build. There does not appear to be any further information provided by witnesses documenting the suspects’ race, age, clothing, hair color, eye color, or facial features. In light of the lack of detail in the descriptions provided, it will likely be difficult if not impossible to argue that the two men arrested were in fact the individuals involved in the robbery. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

street-fight-379259-mAccording to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, two men were charged with assaulting each other during a fight this past Wednesday in Framingham. The article states that the men work in the same building on Concord Street. One of the men (defendant number one) reportedly bumped into an antique porcelain sink sitting outside of the business owned by the second man (defendant number two) and, according to defendant number two, knocked the sink over. Defendant number two yelled at defendant number one about the incident. When defendant number two then went to pick the sink up, defendant number one reportedly attacked him. Specifically, defendant number two claims that defendant number one hit him in the back of the head with a serving tray. Defendant number two then swung a broomstick at defendant number one – reportedly to defend himself – but missed. The two men fought for about five minutes before defendant number one left the building. Defendant number one told police that defendant number two had threatened him by saying, “I know where you live, I know where you work” and that he had only used the serving tray in self-defense. Both men were summonsed to court to face charges – Defendant number two was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and defendant number one was charged with assault and battery on a person over 60 (defendant number two is 63).

The defendants are considered cross-complainants. This means that while they are both charged as defendants in the alleged incident, they are also both the alleged victims. Prosecuting cross-complaints may be challenging for the Commonwealth because there are Fifth Amendment implications. The Fifth Amendment states that a person cannot be compelled to testify against himself if that testimony is potentially incriminating and/or could result in criminal prosecution. In this case, the Commonwealth would need to call defendant number two to the stand to testify against defendant number one, as defendant number two is the sole witness to the assault against him, but because defendant number two is also facing criminal charges himself, he clearly has a Fifth Amendment privilege and could refuse to testify. Similarly, the Commonwealth would presumably seek to call defendant number one to the stand to testify against defendant number two, but because defendant number one is also facing criminal charges, he likewise has a Fifth Amendment privilege and could refuse to testify. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

sad-snot-nosed-kid-1062449-mAccording to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Framingham man, was arrested after physically disciplining his son. The child, who is seven years old, bit one his teachers at his school. Following the incident, the defendant, the child’s father, reportedly destroyed the child’s video game system. The child’s mother tried to intervene and prevent the defendant from breaking the system. When she did so, however, the defendant reportedly hit her and shoved her away. He then reportedly hit his son and kicked him twice in his buttocks. Approximately two hours after the alleged incident, the defendant presented himself at the police station. While there, he acknowledged that he had hit his son twice in the rear, but denied kicking him. As a result of the incident, the defendant was charged with (1) assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (shod foot); (2) assault and battery on a child; (3) domestic assault and battery; and (4) malicious destruction of property over $250.

Despite the fact that the defendant was charged with these offenses, he does appear to have a legitimate defense. In relation to the charges in which the defendant’s son is the alleged victim, the defendant can argue that he was simply using reasonable physical force to discipline his child. While the Massachusetts legislature does not specifically allow for the use of physical discipline by a parent, Massachusetts case law alludes to the ability of a parent, or one acting in position of a parent, to use physical force to discipline a child. For example, in Commonwealth v. Rubeck, the Supreme Judicial Court appears to recognize the parental right to discipline as a legitimate defense to the use of physical force against a child as long as the physical force is for the specific purpose of discipline, is conducted in a controlled manner rather than the result of an emotional outburst, and does not result in bruising or significant injury. Given the fact that it is undeniably inappropriate for a seven year old child to bite a teacher, the defendant can argue that he was within his rights to put his hands on his child for the purpose of disciplining him. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

camera-monitoring-488734-mAccording to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a German au pair who has been charged with assaulting the three year old boy that she cared for has filed a criminal complaint against the child’s father. The au pair was reportedly caught on camera shoving the boy to the floor. The camera recorded both audio and video footage and it appears that the defendant was unaware that any sort of recording device had been put in place to monitor her.

The article indicates that the child’s father had had some concerns regarding the care that the defendant was providing. He then set up a “nanny cam” to record her activity within the home. The appearance of the recording device is not entirely clear – the article does not indicate whether the camera was in plain view and/or whether it was obviously a recording device. Regardless of the appearance of the device, however, it is undisputed that the father did not tell the defendant about the camera and/or that it was recording both audio and visual surveillance. After installing the device, the father apparently watched the footage and observed the incident in which the defendant appears to have shoved the child. Specifically, the video reportedly shows the boy in a living area of the home. the defendant can be heard off camera telling the child to take off his clothes and put his pajamas on so that he can go to bed. Several minutes later, the defendant reportedly enters the room and knocks the child to the floor. He immediately begins crying. the defendant then appears to leave the room but comes back shortly thereafter, sits on the floor with the boy, and tries to comfort him.

Under G. L. c. 272, § 99, it is a crime to record a person’s voice without obtaining his or her permission. As a result, the defendant applied for a criminal complaint against the father, accusing him of violating the wiretapping statute. The defendant’s lawyer is also seeking to have the video excluded from evidence at the trial. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

commuter-station-906664-mAccording to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a man was arrested for assaulting and attempting to rob another man at the West Natick MBTA station this past Thursday. The article states that the police went to the station for a report of fight. When they arrived, they saw the defendant, who told the officers that another man had punched him in the face for no reason. He further stated that he and the other man were talking about God when the man punched him. The police located the other man, who was on the train and he admitted to punching the defendant. The man further claimed that the defendant had attacked him. He stated that the defendant had approached him, began talking about religion, and “aggressively asked for money.” The man reportedly told the defendant that he did not have any money and the defendant reportedly pulled the man into a “bear hug” and was yelling at him. It was at this point that the man punched him. The defendant released the man, but then allegedly threatened to stab him. For reasons that are not entirely clear, the police determined that the man should be credited over the defendant and they arrested the defendant on charges of assault and battery, attempted unarmed robbery, and threatening to commit a crime.

While the other man’s account, if credited, does appear to make out the elements of assault and battery and threats, the defendant may have a motion to dismiss the attempted unarmed robbery charge. To prove that he attempted to commit an unarmed robbery under G. L. c . 274, § 6, the Commonwealth would have to demonstrate the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant had the specific intent to commit an unarmed robbery; and (2) that he took an overt act toward committing that crime, which was part of carrying out the crime, and came reasonably close to actually carrying out that crime. Under G. L. c. 265, § 19, the elements of unarmed robbery are: (1) that a defendant either applied actual force and violence to the body of the victim or put the victim in fear by threatening words or gestures; (2) that the defendant took money or other property with the intent to steal it; and (3) that the defendant took the money or other property from the immediate control of the victim. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

at-the-mall-5-363181-mAccording to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, two men arranged a drug deal with a third man – the alleged victim – and then reportedly robbed and beat him. The article states that one of the defendants (defendant number one) and the alleged victim met up in Lynn and then drove to Hudson to buy marijuana. Once in Hudson, defendant number one and the alleged victim picked up the second defendant (defendant number two) at a Rite Aid pharmacy and the three of them went to a parking lot near 25 South Street. According to the article, the defendants then pulled out a gun and threatened the alleged victim, took $300 in cash from him, and physically assaulted him. After the assault, the defendants left the scene. It is not clear how the police were notified of the assault, but they did ultimately arrive at the parking lot following a call about a “fight” and found the alleged victim there, injured and bleeding.

After the alleged victim provided his account of assault to the police, they arrested the defendants. Defendant number two made a statement indicating that he was the one that had been assaulted by the alleged victim rather than the other way around. He specifically stated he had tried to buy drugs from the alleged victim and that the deal “went bad.” Defendant number two also had visible injuries, including a welt under his eye and a bite mark on his back. As a result of the incident, both of the defendants were charged with armed robbery, conspiracy, threats to commit a crime, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon with substantial injury to the victim. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

gun-1213609-mOdin Lloyd, a semi-pro football player, was found murdered in an industrial park in Attleboro in June 2013. Former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez was ultimately charged with Lloyd’s murder. Three other individuals were also arrested in connection with Lloyd’s death: Carlos Ortiz, Ernest Wallace, and Tanya Singleton. Prosecutors have alleged that Wallace and Ortiz were with Hernandez when he allegedly killed Lloyd. Specifically, prosecutors allege that on the night of June 16, 2013, Hernandez summoned Ortiz and Wallace to his home, that the three of them drove to Dorchester and picked up Lloyd, and that they then returned to North Attleboro. There, shortly before 3:30 a.m. on June 17, 2013, prosecutors allege that Hernandez shot and killed Lloyd. Singleton allegedly drove Wallace to Georgia in the days after Lloyd’s murder.

Ortiz cooperated with investigators, laying out a detailed story about the murder. Ortiz’s story, however, changed in relation to a key detail. Initially, Ortiz told investigators that Hernandez drove him, Wallace, and Lloyd to an industrial park in North Attleboro. Ortiz had insisted that Hernandez, Wallace, and Lloyd got out of the car while he stayed behind. He had said that he heard gunshots, and that only Hernandez and Wallace got back in the car. This past summer, however, Ortiz’s version of events changed: he told investigators that Wallace did not get out of the car. Additionally, a white towel was found on the ground near Lloyd’s body, and surveillance footage from a gas station taken about 90 minutes before the murder shows Ortiz with a light colored towel around his neck, leading some to question Ortiz’s claim that he remained in the car during the shooting.

In addition to these inconsistencies, an article in The Boston Globe indicates that Ortiz failed a lie detector test. During the test, Ortiz told the examiner that he was sleeping in the car when Lloyd was killed. After the examiner told Ortiz that the test results indicated that he was lying, Ortiz maintained he didn’t see the shooting but had seen Hernandez and Lloyd get out of the car. Ortiz then told the examiner that he and Wallace stayed in the car, heard the gun shot, saw Hernandez run back to the car, and that Lloyd didn’t return. The report from the test also indicates that Ortiz twice denied shooting Lloyd, but that the examiner scored his answers to those questions as “Deception Indicated.” Continue reading →

Published on:

By

clubs-4-969861-mAccording to an article in The Boston Globe, a captain in the Revere Fire Department got into a scuffle with trick-or-treaters on Halloween night and was arrested as a result. The article indicates that the defendant was out with his wife and their six-year old son in Revere. Around 7:30pm, the family encountered a group of ten to twenty teenagers who reportedly began harassing the six-year-old and allegedly threw items at him. After the initial encounter, the group left but soon returned with more kids. The group then reportedly “taunted” the six-year-old and told the family that they were going to “mess” him up. According to the defendant’s wife, the group then turned on the defendant. There was some sort of physical altercation and the defendant was reportedly knocked to the ground. At some point during the scuffle, the defendant swung a golf club that he happened to have with him and struck at least two of the kids, who were injured. The defendant’s wife called the police to report the incident, but it was the defendant who ended up being arrested – specifically, he was charged with three counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and one count of assault and battery on a child. He is scheduled to be arraigned this coming week.

For the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant committed the crime of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon under G. L. c. 265, § 15A(b), it would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant touched the person of the alleged victims, however slightly, without having any right or excuse for doing so; (2) that he intended to touch the alleged victims; and (3) that the touching was done by means of a dangerous weapon. For the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant committed the crime of assault and battery on a child under G. L. c. 265, § 15A(c), it would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant touched the person of the alleged victims, without having any right or excuse for doing so; (2) that he intended to touch the alleged victims; and (3) that the alleged victims were children under the age of fourteen. Continue reading →

Contact Information
Framingham Office
150 Speen St,
#201
Framingham, MA 01701
Phone: (508) 762-4540 Fax: (508) 739-2266
Natick Office
27 Strathmore Rd
Natick, MA 01760
Phone: (508) 969-9505 Fax: (508) 739-2266

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Cappetta Law Offices
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design