Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: October 17, 2014

Women in Framingham Charged with Separate Assaults Against Each Other

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, two women in Framingham were recently arrested for separate assaults against each other. One of the women called police and reported that her ex-girlfriend had assaulted her at her home and stolen several items. A warrant was issued for the ex’s arrested, but the police were unable to locate her at the time. Several days later, the police were called to the ex’s apartment for a report of a loud argument between two women. When the police arrived, they found both the woman and her ex. Police arrested the ex on the existing arrest warrant, which charged her with one count of larceny and two counts of assault and battery. When she got to the police station, however, the ex told police that the woman had come to her house and punched her in the face. Following these allegations, the police arrested the woman on one count of assault and battery.

Whether one or both of the women is telling the truth, it is unlikely that the Commonwealth will be able to successfully prosecute either of them. The women are considered cross-complainants. In other words, they are both charged as defendants in the alleged incidents, but are also the alleged victims. Prosecuting cross-complaints can be a somewhat complicated process because there are potential Fifth Amendment issues for both of the involved parties. Continue reading →

Published on: October 15, 2014

Framingham Woman Arrested for Assaulting Husband

By Daniel Cappetta

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 →

Published on: October 10, 2014

Woman Breaks into Ex’s Apartment in Framingham

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, an Ashland woman broke into an apartment in Framingham last week, with her two year old son in tow. A woman in a neighboring building called police and told them that she had seen a person breaking into an apartment at approximately 5pm. The police responded to the scene. Upon arrival, the police saw an overturned trash barrel underneath the fire escape. A window off the fire escape was broken and the police observed muddy footprints from the fire escape to the window. Additionally, the officers saw a car parked outside the apartment with a smashed windshield. An officer climbed the fire escape and went into the apartment through the broken window. The officer found the woman inside. She was barefoot and holding her two year old son. The woman told officers that her ex-boyfriend (the two year olds’ father) lived in the apartment and she broke in because she no longer lived there and had been locked out. She also admitted that she smashed the car windshield, and stated that she had broken in because her ex is seeing another woman. She was subsequently arrested for breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony, malicious destruction of property, and malicious damage to a car. Continue reading →

Published on: October 5, 2014

Man Charged with Assaulting Hotel Manager in Framingham

By Daniel Cappetta

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 →

Published on: September 23, 2014

Woman Allegedly Assaults Ex-Boyfriend’s New Girlfriend in Framingham

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Framingham woman is facing charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. The article states that the woman allegedly attacked her ex-boyfriend’s new girlfriend in July.

The alleged victim told police that she was walking to her car near Tedeschi’s on Hollis Street in Framingham when she saw the defendant. The defendant began “coming toward” her and, as the alleged victim got into her car, the defendant reportedly started throwing rocks through the open car window. The defendant eportedly hit the alleged victim with two rocks. The article does not indicate that the alleged victim was injured, or that she had any marks on her, nor does it indicate that her car was damaged in any way. After the purported assault, the alleged victim went to the police station and made a report. The defendant was subsequently summonsed to court and arraigned. In addition to the above referenced offense, the defendant was also charged with violation of a harassment order, as the alleged victim had a harassment order in place against the defendant. At the arraignment, the defendant’s attorney indicated that the defendant’s ex-boyfriend had told her that he would “make her life miserable,” potentially providing the defendant with an argument that the ex and his new girlfriend have a motive to fabricate the allegations against her.

For a jury to convict the defendant of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon under G. L. c. 265, § 15A, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant touched the alleged victim, however slightly, without having any right or excuse for doing so; (2) that the defendant intended to touch the alleged victim; and (3) that the touching was done with a dangerous weapon. For a jury to convict the defendant of violation of a harassment order under G. L. c. 258E, § 9, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the court had issued a harassment order ordering the defendant to refrain from abusing or harassing, refrain from contacting, or stay away from the alleged victim, her home, and/or her workplace; (2) that the order was in effect on the date when the violation allegedly occurred; (3) that the defendant knew the pertinent terms of the order and that it was in effect; and (4) that the defendant violated the order by abusing or harassing, contacting, or failing to stay away from the alleged victim, her home, and/or her workplace. Continue reading →

Published on: September 22, 2014

Woman Arrested in Hopkinton on Drug Charges

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, police officers found a woman using drugs in a school parking lot in Hopkinton earlier this week. The article states that a Hopkinton officer noticed a car parked in a school parking lot around 2am on Tuesday morning. The officer stopped to investigate and observed the woman sitting inside the vehicle, nodding in and out of consciousness. The woman had something tied on her arm as a tourniquet, which, according to the article, is a practice common among intravenous drug users. The officer could also see a hypodermic needle inside the vehicle. The officer knocked on the window and the woman made an attempt to hide the needle, and a bag of what the officer believed to be heroin. The officer then arrested the woman and searched the car, finding an additional six small bags of heroin. The woman was charged with several drug related crimes, including possession with intent to distribute, possession, and a school zone violation.

To convict the woman of possession with intent to distribute under G. L. c. 94C, § 32, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the substance was in fact heroin; (2) that the woman possessed some amount of the heroin with the intent to distribute it to another person; and (3) that she did so knowingly or intentionally. As to the second element, the Commonwealth must specifically prove that the heroin was not solely for the woman’s own use, but rather that it was intended for distribution to others. The following factors may be considered in determining whether the heroin was for distribution rather than personal use:

the quantity of the drugs that were possessed;
how the drugs were packaged;
the presence of other items associated with drug; distribution, such as cutting powder, packaging materials, scales, or large amounts of cash; and
whether there is any evidence suggesting that sale was in progress.

To convict the woman of a school zone violation under G. L. c. 94C, § 32J, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the woman committed the offense of possession with intent to distribute within 300 feet of a school; (2) that this offense was committed between 5am and 12am.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 12, 2014

Milford Teen Charged with Vehicular Homicide as Result of 2013 Collision

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a Milford teenager is now facing charges of vehicular homicide. Specifically, the article states that a sixteen-year-old teenage girl crashed her car into a thirteen-year-old Hopkinton boy in September of 2013. The boy died shortly after the collision.

There are two potential ways in which the Commonwealth can charge an individual for motor vehicular homicide: under G. L. c. 90, § 24G(a), which is a felony, or under G. L. c. 90, § 24G(b), which is a misdemeanor. Under the felony charge, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the teen operated a motor vehicle; (2) on a way or in a place that the public had access, or in a place where members of the public have access as invitees or licensees; (3) that while the teen was operating the vehicle, she had a percentage, by weight, of alcohol in her blood of .08% or greater, or was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or was under the influence of drugs; (4) that the teen operated the vehicle in a manner which is considered “reckless” under the laws of Massachusetts, or that the teen operated the vehicle in a negligent manner so that the lives and safety of the public might have been endangered; and (5) that the teen’s actions cause the death of another person. Under the misdemeanor charge, the elements are essentially the same, however rather than requiring proof of both the third and fourth elements, the Commonwealth must prove just one or the other. In other words, the Commonwealth must prove either that the teen had a percentage, by weight, of alcohol in her blood of .08% or greater, or was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or was under the influence of drugs or that she operated the vehicle in a manner which is considered reckless under the laws of Massachusetts, or operated the vehicle in a negligent manner so that the lives and safety of the public might have been endangered. Although the article doesn’t specify whether the teen is charged with the misdemeanor rather than the felony, it appears that it is safe to assume that this is case because there is no indication whatsoever that the teen was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the incident. Continue reading →

Published on: September 8, 2014

Sudbury Teen Charged with Child Enticement

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a seventeen-year-old boy from Sudbury was charged with enticing a child under the age of sixteen. The article states that a resident from Skyview Lane called the police around 3:30pm this past Wednesday. The caller stated that a person in a car had made statements to two twelve-year-old boys and allegedly tried to get them to enter the vehicle. The caller then provided a description of the car, which was broadcast to other officers in the area. Officers responding to the scene then stopped a vehicle that matched the caller’s description. The two boys identified the driver as the person that had tried to get them into his car. Police subsequently arrested the driver, whose name is not being released due to his age. The police also searched the vehicle and reportedly found items that supported the allegations. The teen was arraigned in Framingham juvenile court on the charge of enticing a child under the age of sixteen under G. L. c. 265, § 26C.

To prove that the teen is guilty of enticement of a child under the age of sixteen, the Commonwealth would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the alleged victim(s) were under the age of sixteen, or that the teen believed to be under the age of sixteen; (2) that the teen enticed the alleged victims to enter his vehicle; and (3) that the teen did so with the intent that he (or another person) would commit one or more of the following offenses:

Indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of 14, on a person with an intellectual disability, or on a person 14 years or older;
Rape of a child under 16 with force or abuse of a child under the age of 16;
Assault on a child under 16 with intent to commit rape;
Inducing a minor to become a prostitute;
Open and gross lewdness;
Disseminating matter harmful to a minor;
Disseminating or possessing to disseminate obscene matter;
Posing or exhibiting a child under 18 in a state of nudity or sexual conduct;
Knowingly purchasing or possessing visual material of a child under 18 in sexual conduct;
Unnatural and lascivious acts with a child under 16;
Accosting or annoying a person of the opposite sex;
Common nightwalker or streetwalker;
Disorderly conduct;
Disturbing the peace;
Indecent exposure;
Keeping a noisy and disorderly house;
Lewd, wanton and lascivious conduct;
Engaging in sexual conduct for a fee;
Paying or procuring for sexual conduct with a child under 14.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 2, 2014

Man Charged with Pawning Stolen Jewelry in Framingham

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, a man from Worcester allegedly stole necklaces and a ring from his ex-girlfriend’s Framingham home and sold them to a local jewelry store. The investigation began in May when the mans ex went to the police station and reported that some of her jewelry was missing. She stated that she thought her ex boyfriend took the jewelry. The article does not include why she believed this to be the case, or what, if any, information she had to support her conclusion at the time that the allegations were made. The police then began checking local jewelry stores and apparently discovered that the man accused had sold a gold necklace and ring to Stardust Jewelers, located on Route 9, on March 30^th for $41. The store provided photographs of the jewelry and the ex identified the items as hers. After she identified the jewelry as hers, the police then returned to the store and asked the store to return the items. The store, however, had already melted the necklace and ring down. At some point after that, the ex told either the police or the district attorney’s office that she did not want the police to prosecute him for the purported theft, but police sought charges anyway and he was arraigned on one count of receiving stolen property over $250. For the Commonwealth to convict him of receiving stolen property over $250 under G. L. c. 266, § 60, it would have to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the property in question was in fact stolen; (2) that he knew that the property had been stolen; (3) that he knowingly had the stolen property in his possession; and (4) the total value of the stolen property exceeded $250. As to the first element, the Commonwealth must establish that someone had taken the property and carried it away without the right to do so, and without the consent of the owner, while intending to permanently deprive the owner of the property. The Commonwealth is not required to prove who stole the property. As to the second element, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that the property was stolen, or at least believed that it was stolen – it is not sufficient to simply prove that a reasonable person in his position would have known or believed the property to be stolen. As to the third element, the Commonwealth must show that he “received” the property – specifically that he knowingly took custody or control of it. Continue reading →

Published on: August 20, 2014

Framingham Men Arrested in Dispute Over Parking

By Daniel Cappetta

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 →