Articles Posted in Assault Crimes

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Framingham woman was arrested for assaulting her husband last week. The article reports that the wife came home drunk and screamed at her husband. She then reportedly left the room, got a kitchen knife and returned, waving the knife close to her husband and continuing to scream. The husband told police that the wife then went into a room with the couple’s children and locked the door. It was at this point that the husband reportedly called the police. When officers arrived, they could not locate any knife, but arrested the wife anyway and charged her with assault with a dangerous weapon.

For the Commonwealth to prove that the wife committed an assault with a dangerous weapon under G. L. c. 265, § 15B(b), it would have to show the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the wife intended to put her husband in fear of an imminent battery; (2) that she engaged in some conduct toward her husband which her husband reasonably perceived as imminently threatening a battery; and (3) that the assault was done by means of a dangerous weapon.

While the husband’s allegations in and of themselves are enough to satisfy each of these elements, the wife appears to have a few potential defenses. First, there appears to be some question as to the husband’s credibility. He claims that the wife came at him with a kitchen knife and swung it at him repeatedly. He further claims that she then locked herself in a room with their children. The article appears to indicate that when the police arrived, the wife was still in the room with the children, yet when they entered the room, they were unable to locate any weapon. In light of the fact that the police did not locate the knife, and the fact that the husband was unable to provide the police with some alternative explanation as to where the knife might be, the wife could argue that her husband’s version of events was simply not true, and therefore that the Commonwealth has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Continue reading →

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Natick man was arrested last week for assaulting a hotel manager in Framingham. The hotel manager reportedly received several complaints from other hotel guests about loud music coming from the defendant’s room around 2:30am. The manager went to the room and knocked on the door, but no one responded. The manager then unlocked the door and attempted to open it. The chain lock was in place, so she yelled into the room. Again, no one responded. The manager then reached into the room and attempted to unlock the chain. When she did so, the defendant allegedly jumped out from behind the door and tried to slam it shut. The manager’s arm was still in the door and got caught as the defendant was attempting to shut it. She had a large lump on forearm as a result, but declined medical attention. The manager then retreated and called the police. When the police arrived, they knocked on the door and told the defendant that he was being kicked out of the hotel. Despite this announcement, the defendant reportedly refused to open the door for the police. Officers forced the door open and arrested the defendant for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (the door) on a person older than sixty (the manager is sixty years old) and disturbing the peace.

For the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant is guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon under G. L. c. 265, § 15A, it would have to show the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant engaged in actions which caused bodily injury to the manager; (2) that the injury was done with a dangerous weapon; and (3) that the defendant’s actions amounted to reckless conduct. As to the last element, it is not enough for the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant acted negligently, i.e., in a manner that a reasonably careful person would not. Rather, it must be shown that his actions went beyond mere negligence and amounted to recklessness. A person has acted recklessly if he knew or should have known that his actions were very likely to cause substantial harm to someone, but he ran that risk and acted anyway. The Commonwealth need not prove that the defendant intended to injure or strike the manager, or that he foresaw the harm that resulted. Even if the defendant were not conscious of the serious danger inherent in his conduct, it is still considered reckless under the law if a reasonable person, under the circumstances known to the defendant, would have recognized that such actions were so dangerous that it was very likely that they would result in substantial injury.   Continue reading →

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, two men were charged following a fight over parking in Framingham. The men live in neighboring apartment buildings on Wilson Drive. There is a shared driveway between the two buildings. The police received reports of a fight and arrived on scene where they spoke to one of the men (defendant number 1). He reported that he and the other man (defendant number 2) began arguing about a parking space and that defendant number 2 was holding an umbrella in his hand during the fight. Defendant number one claimed that he told defendant number two not to touch him, but that defendant number 2 poked him in the chest with the umbrella. Defendant number one further stated that defendant number two struck him in the head with the umbrella and that he fell to the ground. Defendant number one stated that he was ultimately able to get up and run away. Defendant number one’s friend, who was not identified in the article, corroborated defendant number one’s story.

The police then called defendant number two’s cell phone to try and get his version of events, but the call went directly to voicemail. At some later point, however, defendant number two came into the police station and gave his side of the story. According to him, he was trying to pull out of the driveway but defendant number one and his friend were parked so closely to his car that he was unable to get out. When defendant number two asked defendant number one and his friend to move, he and his friend reportedly became “aggressive.” Defendant number one allegedly grabbed defendant number two’s phone and threw it on the ground, shattering it. Defendant number one also reportedly punched defendant number two, and defendant number two struck him back. Defendant number one then moved the car. According to defendant number two’s version, defendant number one and his friend told defendant number two that they were going to call the police and that it would be their word against his. As a result of the defendants’ mutual allegations, the police charged both men. Specifically, defendant number one was charged with assault and battery and malicious destruction of property over $250. Defendant number two was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.

Continue reading →

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Worcester police officer has been charged with: (1) home invasion; (2) assault and battery; (3) breaking and entering; (4) trespassing; and (5) threats. The defendant, a 16 year veteran of the Worcester Police Department, reportedly forced his way into his ex-wife’s house and beat a man that was inside with the wife. The article specifically reports that the defendant went to his ex-wife’s home, located in Northborough, and allegedly began banging on the door, yelling at her to let him in, and swearing. When the ex-wife refused to let the defendant into the house, he reportedly forced a kitchen window screen open and climbed through. The defendant was in his full police uniform at the time, and was armed with his gun, which was holstered in his belt/waist area. After gaining entry to the home, the defendant allegedly attacked the man that was in the house with his ex-wife, including reportedly grabbing him by the neck, punching him several times, and striking him in the face and neck. During the assault, the defendant allegedly told the man that “I will kill you” repeatedly, and said that he would “murder” the man if he was ever around the defendant’s family again. It is unclear how the incident ended, but the defendant’s ex-wife did call the police, who issued a warrant for the defendant’s arrest. After the warrant issued, the defendant turned himself in. He posted bail and was arraigned in Westborough District Court on the above referenced charges. While the allegations are undoubtedly concerning, the most serious charge the defendant faces is home invasion. For the Commonwealth to obtain a conviction for home invasion under G. L. c. 265, § 18C, it would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant (1) unlawfully entered the dwelling place of another; (2) knew or had reason to know one or more persons were present within the dwelling house when entering, or alternately, that the defendant remained in the dwelling place when he knew or had reason to know that one or more persons were present; (3) was armed with a dangerous weapon at the time of entry; and (4) used force or threatened the imminent use of force on any person within the dwelling house, or alternately, intentionally caused injury to any person within the dwelling place. Continue reading →

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Framingham man allegedly assaulted his father at their home on June 24^th.  The article states that at the time of the alleged incident, the man was out on bail on another case – a stabbing from last March.  As part of his conditions of release on the stabbing case, the man was on GPS and house arrest.  Prior to the incident with the man’s father, the man and his attorney went into court to ask the judge to remove the order for house arrest so that the man could get a job.  The judge denied the request.  Later that same day, the man was reportedly drinking at his house and got into an altercation with his father.  According to the man’s father, the man became angry and yelled, attempted to punch his father, and threatened to kill him.  The man’s father called the police, who subsequently arrested the man and charged him with one count of assault and one count of threats.  As a result of the new charges, the man was held in custody.

While there are several different avenues that the man’s attorney may explore to obtain a favorable outcome, one that should definitely be considered is an accord and satisfaction.  An accord and satisfaction, laid out under G. L. c. 276, § 55, is an agreement between an alleged victim and a defendant documenting that the alleged victim has received “satisfaction” for any injury caused by the defendant. Satisfaction can be almost anything, for example a written apology, assurances that the conduct will not be repeated, money damages, the return of property, or even an agreement to enter and complete substance abuse programming.  To obtain an accord and satisfaction, the alleged victim must appear before the court, acknowledge in writing that he has been satisfied, and inform the court that he wants the case to be dismissed.  While an accord and satisfaction can only be sought where the defendant is charged with certain misdemeanors for which the defendant is liable in a civil action, both the assault and threats charges that the man is facing are misdemeanors for which an accord and satisfaction could be obtained. Continue reading →

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a 24 year-old man from Framingham, was involved in an altercation with another man this past week. The article states that the defendant and the other man were assaulting each other. During the incident, the defendant allegedly picked up a rock and hit the other man with it. It is unclear what the two were fighting about, but both the defendant and the other man appear to have been injured in the fight; the article states that the other man had a bump on his head, and includes a picture of the defendant with a significant laceration along the right side of his face. The article does not state how the police became involved, but does indicate that when they arrived, they only arrested the defendant for his involvement in the fight. The defendant was ultimately charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

Despite the fact that the other man had some injuries, the defendant appears to have a strong argument that he was merely defending himself. To establish a claim of self-defense, the defendant would have to offer some evidence that he had a reasonable belief that his physical safety was in immediate danger – specifically he would have to show that he reasonably believed that he was being attacked, or was immediately about to be attacked. Given the fact that the defendant and the other man were fighting each other, it seems likely that the defendant will be able to establish that he reasonably believed that his physical safety was in danger. Continue reading →

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Shrewsbury, MA man threatened a McDonald’s employee earlier this week. The man was apparently a former employee of the McDonald’s, and went into the restaurant looking for the alleged victim with a crow bar in his hand. When the man saw the alleged victim, he reportedly attempted to go after him, however, two other employees blocked the man’s path before he was able to get to the alleged victim. The man then reportedly told the alleged victim that he would shoot him. After someone said that they were calling the police, the man left. When the police arrived, they spoke to the alleged victim who reported that he and the man used to be friends, but that their two respective girlfriends had “issues” that led the man and the alleged victim to be “enemies.” The police also spoke to the man, who acknowledged that he had tried to go after the alleged victim with the crow bar, and that he had threatened to shoot him, but explained that he had only done so because he owed the alleged victim money and was afraid that the alleged victim was going to physically harm him. The man was ultimately charged with: (1) assault and battery with a dangerous weapon; (2) threats to commit a crime; (3) and disorderly conduct. Of the three charges, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon is the most serious, as it is a felony and carries a significant potential jail sentence (up to two and a half years in the house of correction). Threats to commit a crime and disorderly conduct are both misdemeanors – threats carries a maximum penalty of six months in the house of correction and disorderly conduct carries only a fine. Continue reading →