Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: January 3, 2013

Cambridge Woman Facing Sex Charges

A Cambridge woman is facing one count of sexual conduct for a fee after she allegedly offered to perform a sex act for a fee to an undercover police officer, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. Officers reportedly performed a sting operation around 7 p.m. Wednesday, December 12th at the woman’s place of employment, where she worked as a massage therapist, police said.

The woman was released on personal recognizance after being arraigned at Framingham District Court.

Sudbury Police reportedly received an anonymous tip December 6th that the business was listed on a website that lists erotic Asian massage parlors. An officer reportedly made an appointment for 7 p.m. and met the woman. After about fifteen minutes into the massage, the woman and the officer allegedly started talking about a fee. They allegedly negotiated a price for sexual favors. The woman allegedly never stated explicitly what she would do for the negotiated price, but gestured with her hand in a way that the officer reportedly interpreted as being an agreement to perform a sexual act. The officer then reportedly arrested the woman.

The woman has been the only person charged in connection with the business; however, police reportedly stated that the investigation is ongoing.
Officers reportedly seized a laptop and cell phone at the time of the woman’s arrest. The woman’s attorney is reportedly arguing that these items were seized without a warrant and should be returned to his client. However, Judge Greco sided with the prosecution in allowing them to retain the items but ordered then to not search the items without a warrant. The woman’s attorney may have luck trying to get any evidence suppressed that is collected before prosecutors secure a warrant. The woman is due back in court January 15th.

In order to prevail on the sexual conduct for a fee charge, the prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman either engaged, or agreed to engage, or offered to engage, in sexual conduct with another person; and that the sexual conduct was done, or going to be done, in return for a fee. If convicted of sexual conduct for a fee, the woman is facing the possibility of a jail sentence for up to a year and up to $500 in fines.

The woman is facing serious implications from this charge. A conviction of a sex crime can seriously impede a person’s professional and personal life. Additionally, it can have immigration implications. However, this charge is a misdemeanor charge that she may have an ability to overcome, especially if this is her first time being involved in the criminal justice system. She may have luck trying to get any evidence from the phone and computer suppressed. Additionally, an anonymous tip is a relatively weak piece of evidence for police to bring against a defendant. Also, the woman could argue that she never made any explicit statements or implicated herself in any way that the officer could be certain about. Anyone facing sex crime charges needs a skilled and capable Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer fighting for him or her.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 30, 2012

Bellingham Man Facing Grand Larceny Charges After Arrest at Wegmans

By Daniel Cappetta

A recent article in the MetroWest Daily News tells the story of a Bellingham man who was charged with larceny of property over $250 and disorderly conduct on Wednesday, December 12th following a chase through Wegmans and onto Shops way at about 5 p.m. The man allegedly attempted to steal $400 in baby formula. Store security employees allegedly saw the man load several small empty plastic bags from the produce section into his cart, then stuff 22 containers of baby formula into the empty bags. Employees reportedly believed the man was trying to make it look like he had already paid for the items. Store security allegedly alerted the police who came to Wegmans.

Police reportedly waited in their cruisers outside of the store. When the man got close to the exit, police reportedly saw him quickly turn and walk back into the store, leaving his cart behind. Officers then reportedly followed the man into the store. When the police identified themselves as officers, the man allegedly ran from them. The officers reportedly chased him through the store and outside for a few hundred yards after the man allegedly ran out the emergency exit. Officers finally caught the man and he was arraigned at Westborough District Court on Thursday, December 13th.

The man has been charged with larceny over $250, which is a felony in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Grand larceny, or larceny of over $250, is punishable by up to five years in state prison, a fine of up to $25,000, or imprisonment in jail for up to two years. In order to prevail on the charge, prosecutors will have to prove that the man did steal, take, and carry away the property of another, that the property had a value of more than $250, and that the man specifically intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

There are a number of defenses that can be used when facing a larceny charge. One of the common defenses is to try to get the felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor charge by fighting the alleged amount of the property. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was valued at $250 or more. Therefore, it is often possible to get the charged reduced to petty theft, or larceny under $250.

In this case, the man may be able to argue that he never left the store with the property. Prosecutors may face difficulty with proving the first requirement–that he did steal, take, and carry away the property of another. If the man argues this point, prosecutors may have a hard time proving that this element beyond a reasonable doubt. He could also argue against the identification by store employees or police.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 22, 2012

Two Men Charged with Attempted Murder After Framingham Stabbing

By Daniel Cappetta

According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, two men have been arrested following a stabbing in Framingham on Saturday, December 1, 2012. The men were charged with attempted murder and two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

These charges stem from the men’s alleged stabbing of a man in the bicep and a woman in the chest, following an altercation. The female victim reportedly nearly died after being stabbed; she allegedly identified one of the defendants as the man who stabbed her and her boyfriend.

The defendants reportedly drove away from the scene in a minivan and were pulled over by Holliston Police around 4:00 a.m. Police report that one of the defendants had a cut on his face and that there was blood on the dashboard and on the other defendant’s shoes. Police reportedly searched the car and found a bloody knife in the glove compartment.

The defendants were reportedly not cooperative with police; they allegedly refused to answer police questions, swore at police, and laughed at the situation. They allegedly did tell police a few things about themselves, though. Police report that the defendants told officers to Google their names to find out how bad they were and that they had been to jail and were gang members who beat women.

The MetroWest Daily News article reports that the defendants are members of the Outfitters gang. Both men are also reportedly on probation after they were found guilty of armed robbery.

One of the defendants was denied bail after a judge decided he was too dangerous to be released to the public at a dangerousness hearing. The other defendant was given a $15,000 bail at a dangerousness hearing. Both are due back in Framingham District Court on January 4 for a pretrial conference.

The defendants are facing very serious charges and have a lot at stake in this case. Allegations of gang involvement and the report that they are already on probation make this situation particularly serious. To prove the attempted murder charge, prosecutors must prove that the defendants 1) harbored a specific intent to kill and (2) committed an overt act with malice. An overt act is one that a person would reasonably believe would result in a desired outcome, in this case murder.

A possible defense in this situation is to discredit the eyewitness identification of the defendants. The defense attorneys have reportedly been using this defense already. The attorneys have reportedly said that the only person who identified the men is the female victim, whom the attorneys claim was drunk and high on cocaine. The attorneys are claiming that her identification is not reliable because of the substances in her system. Another defense offered by their attorneys is that attempted murder can only be charged in connection with an attempt to drown, poison, suffocate, or strangle and cannot be charged in connection with a stabbing. One of the defendant’s lawyer has also reportedly said that there is no evidence to connect his client with the crime.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 20, 2012

Marlborough Man Charged in Bank Robbery

By Daniel Cappetta

A Marlborough man was arrested on Friday, December 7th on charges of unarmed robbery and destruction of property, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. The man, who is 36 years old, allegedly handed a bank teller a note stating that he was robbing the bank and that the teller should give him money. The teller allegedly complied but attached a GPS tracker to the money. The man was arrested approximately 10 minutes after the 9:04 a.m. robbery at the St. Mary’s Credit Union on Northboro Road in Marlborough.

Police allege that the man threw the GPS tracker out of his window but that officers pulled him over about a mile from the bank after noticing money stacked on the passenger seat in his vehicle. Officers found the GPS tracker broken on the ground, which led to the destruction of property charge.

Police allege that the man admitted to committing the robbery after he was taken into custody. The man is reportedly on probation for armed robbery convictions and he reportedly served two years in prison for a bank robbery in Cambridge in 2007. He was also convicted of a bank robbery in Dedham in 2008. A warrant for the man’s arrest was reportedly issued earlier in the week in Middlesex Superior Court due to his failure to appear for a probation hearing. The man is currently is being held without bail pending a hearing on Tuesday to determine if he is a danger to the public.

Prosecutors will have to prove that the man robbed the bank without a weapon, that he did so by using force or violence by assault or putting the teller in fear, and that he stole property that may be the subject of larceny to prevail on the charge of unarmed robbery. If the man is convicted of unarmed robbery, he could be facing up to life in prison.

The man is facing serious charges that could lead to imprisonment ranging from a few months up to life. Fortunately for the man, he did not have a weapon. If he used a weapon to rob the bank, he would likely be facing armed robbery charges. An armed robbery conviction would lead to a minimum punishment of five years in prison or a maximum punishment of life in prison. Unarmed robbery does not have a mandatory five-year minimum sentence like armed robbery. However, because the man has been convicted of similar crimes in the past and is on probation, a judge is less likely to give him a light sentence if he is convicted this time.

The man could fight this case by arguing that the police did not have probable cause to pull him over just for seeing money on his passenger seat. However, he is facing tough odds in this case. He needs an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney to fight this case.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 13, 2012

Upton Woman Charged with OUI Following Rollover

By Daniel Cappetta

The MetroWest Daily News recently published an article about an Upton woman who was arrested on Thursday November 29th for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, driving to endanger, as well as driving with a license that was suspended for being a habitual traffic offender. The woman’s charge is a subsequent offense, meaning she has been convicted of the same offense in the past. Specifically, prosecutors allege that the woman was convicted of drunk driving twice in 2010.

Police reportedly arrived on the scene of the single-car accident after the woman’s pickup truck rolled over on Main Street in Hopkinton at 7:54 p.m. Officers reportedly found the woman trapped and standing in the cab of the truck. Police allege that they smelled alcohol coming from the woman and that the woman admitting to having consumed vodka earlier in the day when officers asked her if she had been drinking. Police further allege that the woman failed numerous field sobriety tests but refused to take a Breathalyzer test. The woman was reportedly not injured in the crash but was taken to the hospital as a precaution.

The woman was arraigned on Friday in the Framingham District Court. Prosecutors reportedly did not ask for her to be held. She was released without bail and is due back in Court on January 23rd for a pretrial conference.
Because the woman refused to take a Breathalyzer test, prosecutors will not be able to easily prove that she was over the legal limit while she was driving. Without a breath test prosecutors would need some other evidence like a blood test to actually prove the woman’s blood alcohol content on the night in question. It is much more likely prosecutors will go forward on a straight OUI charge without alleging there was a per se violation of her blood alcohol content limit. To prevail on an OUI charge prosecutors will have to prove that she was operating under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. Prosecutors will use all of the evidence mentioned by the police in their report to try to obtain a conviction in this case.

To prove the driving to endanger charge, prosecutors will have to establish that the woman was operating a motor vehicle on a public road so as to endanger any person, including her. This charge is a misdemeanor that does carry the possibility of jail time.

The woman is facing serious charges that may lead to fines and imprisonment. Additionally, she may have her license suspension time increased for refusing the breathalyzer because of prior convictions for OUI. Because the woman has been convicted of an OUI charge in the past, she is facing harsh consequences.

The woman’s defenses are seemingly limited in this case. Since the police came to the scene of her accident, as opposed to pulling her car over, she cannot argue that they did not have reasonable grounds to stop her car. She may be able to argue that she did not refuse the Breathalyzer. However, this defense could be difficult to prove.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 10, 2012

Two Facing Charges for Multiple Car Break-ins in Framingham

By Daniel Cappetta

Two individuals – a woman from Framingham and a man from Springfield, were arrested at 2:26 a.m. on Tuesday November 27 for allegedly breaking into at least seven vehicles, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News.

Police reportedly responded to a report of a suspicious vehicle on Porter Road around 2:26 a.m. When they arrived, they found the man allegedly leaning into an open vehicle.

Both the man and the woman, who was also present, reportedly had several GPS devices, cell phones, watches, and other items in their possession. Police reportedly determined the couple broke into at least seven different cars to acquire the items.

Both individuals were charged with seven counts of breaking and entering into a vehicle, and six counts of receiving stolen property worth less than $250. Police allege that the man had several GPS units in his possession, as well as $80 in change, several cell phones and watches. Police also allege that they found the woman standing nearby next to a backpack that contained two more GPS units and a cell phone. Police also reportedly suspect the couple of breaking into more cars because they allegedly had several items in their possession that were not identified by the known victims.

The woman was released with no bail, but the man was reportedly held on $1000 bail. The man reportedly has a long record with several crimes similar to the charges he is now facing. He also reportedly made some admissions to police at the time of the arrest. Both individuals are due back in court on Dec. 10 for a pretrial conference
To prevail on the charges of breaking and entering into a vehicle, prosecutors will have to prove that both the man and the woman used force to enter a vehicle that belonged to another person for each of the separate charges. The charge can lead to imprisonment if they are convicted. Breaking and entering can be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on how the defendants are charged. Additionally, committing the offense at night can lead to a longer sentence if the defendants are convicted. To prevail on the charges of receiving stolen property worth less than $250, prosecutors will have to prove that both the man and the woman knew that the property was stolen for each of the separate counts. Because they have been charged with receiving stolen property worth less than $250, they have likely been charged with a misdemeanor regarding this alleged crime. However, if the man has been convicted of this offense previously, he may be facing a felony charge for this alleged offense.

The couple may be able to get some of the charges dropped, or the prosecution may not be able to meet its burden for every charge that they have lodged against them. According to the article, the man and the woman were allegedly found with the items in their possession while the man was leaning into an open vehicle. Therefore, prosecutors may have a hard time meeting their burden for all of the breaking and entering charges.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 5, 2012

Framingham Men Arrested for Theft

By Daniel Cappetta

Two men – a 40 year old and a 19 year old – were arrested a little after 6 p.m. on Tuesday, November 19 as they were leaving the automotive department at Sears, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. The men allegedly used a fake check to buy goods at Sears and later attempted to return the items for money.

Police arrested both of the men and charged them with conspiracy to commit a crime and larceny of more than $250 by a scheme. The 19 year old was also charged with uttering, or passing, a false check.

The 19 year old pleaded not guilty at his arraignment on Wednesday at the Framingham District Court. He posted $100 bail after his arrest, and the amount was not increased at his arraignment. The 40 year old was sent to the hospital for a three-day mental evaluation. He is due in Court on Dec. 13. The 19 year old is due back in court on Jan. 2 for a pretrial conference.

This case seems to rely heavily on eyewitness identification and reporting. Police first responded to Sears around 2 p.m. after receiving a report of a bad check being used. The men were allegedly seen on a security tape gathering a tool and car battery and then buying the items. The two items reportedly cost approximately $340.

A few hours later, the men allegedly went back to Sears and tried to return the battery. A store employee reportedly recognized the men and called police who responded and arrested the men.

The men are facing charges that could potentially result in jail time, fines, community service, or probation. Larceny of property exceeding $250 is a felony in Massachusetts and is punishable by up to five years in prison. It is unclear from the article whether the men have prior criminal convictions. Based on the 19 year old’s low bail amount, it is unlikely that he has a lengthy criminal record. The men’s criminal records could play an important role in their cases. Prior convictions for theft could result in their receving harsher punishments if convicted of these charges.

In order to prevail on the charges against the men, prosecutors will have to prove that they took and carried away the property, that the property was owned by another, and that they intended to deprive the owner of the property permanently. Additionally, the 19 year old is facing a charge of passing a false check. Prosecutors will have to prove that the he wrote, cashed, passed or delivered a bad check; that he obtained money, property, or services as a result of delivering the bad check; that when he wrote the check, he did not have sufficient funds in the bank to cover the check; and that he did this with the intent to defraud the bank or the person who received the check. A bounced check is prima facie evidence of intent to defraud and of knowledge of insufficient funds. An exception to this rule occurs when funds sufficient to cover the check are deposited within two days of receiving notice of insufficient funds from the bank.

The article makes it clear that the 40 year old man is undergoing an evaluation of his mental status. However, the article does not state whether his attorney is going to use his mental state as a defense or how his mental state will come into play in his case.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 27, 2012

Framingham Men Charged with Drug Crimes

By Daniel Cappetta

A Framingham man was arrested on Howard Street at 10 p.m. on Monday, November 19th after allegedly signing for two large boxes that were delivered to him by an undercover Framingham Police detective dressed as a UPS driver, according to a recent article in the MetroWest Daily News. The boxes allegedly contained about $700,000 worth of cocaine and marijuana.

Police also arrested a second man (from Quincy) after he allegedly came to pick up the boxes from the Framingham man.

Both of the men were charged with trafficking cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to violate Massachusetts’s drug laws.

The Quincy man was ordered held on $25,000 bail. The Framingham man received $50,000 bail for the charges of this case. However, the Framingham man has been ordered held without bail on a probation violation for failing to pay $800 in fines for a drunken driving chase in July.

The two men are both due back in court on Dec. 13 for a pretrial conference. The Framingham man will also have a probation violation hearing for his former charges.9
Police in this case gathered evidence prior to the arrests. Investigators from the San Bernadino, California, Sheriff’s office reportedly contacted the Framingham Police Departemtn about boxes containing large amounts of marijuana being sent to 243 Howard St. in Framingham. The boxes reportedly matched past shipments that had been seized. A police officer reportedly posed as a UPS employee and contacted the recipeient of the boxes. The recipient, allegedly the Framingham man, asked for the packages to be dropped off. He was arrested when he allegedly signed for the packages.

According to police, the Framingham man told police he is paid to “catch packages,” which is a term used in the drug trade to refer to dealer having packages delivered to others to protect their identities. He also allegedly told police that he had received around ten shipments for the person and had received around twenty total packages of drugs.

The Quincy man was arrested an hour later after he reportedly arrived to pick up the drugs. He allegedly told police he was paid to pick up the package after the first man telephoned a different person to pick up the drugs.

The two men are facing serious charges and imprisonment. Drug trafficking is the most serious drug charge under Massachusetts law. In order to prevail on the trafficking charge, prosecutors will have to prove that the men possessed cocaine with an intent to sell it and that the amount of cocaine meets the threshold to constitute trafficking. If convicted of the charge of trafficking cocaine, the men are facing imprisonment. The packages contained approximately thirteen pounds of cocaine, which means that the men are facing a mandatory minumum of fifteen years in prison with a possibility of receiving a twenty-year sentence. To prevail on the possession of marijuana with intent do distribute charge, prosecutors must prove that the men had possession of marijuana and had the intent to distribute it. If convicted of this charge, they are facing facing possible jail time, but this charge does not carry a minimum jail sentence.

Prosecutors may have a difficult time proving their case against the men due to the fact that they will have to prove that the men knew that drugs were in the packages they were coming to pick up. Because the men each allegedly confessed to picking up the packages for money, prosecutors may have an easier time than they would have if the men had not given those statements. However, the strength of the prosecutors’ case may be determined by what exactly the men said to each other on the phone and what they said to the police. Also, statements can often be suppressed if the suspects had not been read their Miranda rights or if they were not fully aware of their rights before they spoke to police.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 25, 2012

Wellesley Doctor Facing Multiple Charges Following Accident

By Daniel Cappetta

A recent article in the MetroWest Daily News tells the story of an accident that occurred recently in Wellesley. The woman involved in the accident was arrested Friday, November 9 at 8:45 a.m. for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The woman is an emergency room doctor and was arrested on her way to work at Newton-Wellesley Hospital. According to witnesses, the woman’s car struck multiple cars, a fence, a post, and a tree; The woman’s car was airborne at one point before triggering a multiple-car crash at the intersection of Washington and State streets, outside the Whole Foods parking lot. One driver in the crash was reportedly taken to Newton-Wellesley Hospital with injuries but was later released.

While speaking with the woman after the crash, officers allege that they could detect the smell of alcohol. The woman agreed to perform and subsequently failed two field sobriety tests, police said. The article does not state whether the police performed a breathalyzer test. If the woman did not register as .08 or above on a breathalyzer test, the police will have to prove that she was operating under the influence of an intoxicating liquor in order to prove the OUI charge pertaining to alcohol.

Police charged The woman with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving under the influence of drugs, operating recklessly so as to endanger, leaving the scene of property damage and leaving an accident scene after property damage. These charges reportedly stemmed from the woman’s driving, the significant damage to her car and the other cars involved, her slurred speech, her glassy eyes, and the slight odor of alcohol on her breath. The woman was reportedly also charged with possession of a class C substance, and possession of a class E substance.

In order to prove the OUI charge pertaining to drugs, prosecutors will have to prove that the woman consumed enough of a drug to reduce her ability to operate her vehicle safely. To prove that she operated a vehicle recklessly, the prosecutors must prove that she was operating her vehicle in a place where the public has a right of access and that she did so recklessly. Just because an accident occurred does not mean that she operated her vehicle recklessly. Prosecutors must prove that she was at fault and that her actions rose to the level of recklessness. To prove the possession charges, prosecutors must prove that the substances were controlled substances, that she possessed some perceptible amount of the substance, and that she did so knowingly.

Police allegedly found prescription drugs in the woman’s possession during the booking process and in her car during an inventory search. Some of the drugs were allegedly in prescription bottles, while others were not. Prosecutors reportedly stated in court that they believe the woman had been prescribing drugs to herself.

The woman was arraigned Tuesday, November at the Dedham District Court and pleaded not guilty to her charges. Prosecutors asked that the woman be held on $10,000 bail, but a judge released her on personal recognizance. She is due back in court on Jan. 7.

The woman is facing numerous serious charges. She is facing various fines and, potentially, imprisonment. However, the woman may be able to beat some of the charges she faces. If the police did not give her a breathalyzer test or a blood test, she may be able to overcome the OUI charges she faces. Additionally, if she is able to get the possession evidence suppressed from the searches, she may be able to overcome the possession charges, as well.

Continue reading →

Published on: November 15, 2012

Massachusetts Medical Marijuana Ballot Question Passes

By Daniel Cappetta

On Tuesday Massachusetts residents voted to pass a ballot initiative allowing the use of medical marijuana. The new law eliminates state criminal and civil penalties for the medicinal use of marijuana. The law will go into effect on January 1, 2013.

In order to get a prescription for medical marijuana, a person needs to have a qualifying illness, such as cancer, Parkinson’s disease, HIV, or AIDS. The person must also have a written certification from a physician with whom the patient has a doctor-patient relationship. The patient is allowed to possess up to a sixty-day supply of marijuana for medical use.

The law allows non-profit medical marijuana treatment centers to grow, process and provide marijuana to patients or their caregivers. The law also requires the Department of Public Health (DHP) to issue a cultivation registration to qualifying patients whose access to a treatment center is limited by financial hardship, physical inability to access reasonable transportation, or distance. The patients or their caregivers are only allowed to grow enough plants for a sixty-day supply of marijuana. DPH could revoke any registration for a willful violation of the law. Fraudulent use of a DPH registration could be punished by up to six months in a house of correction or a fine of up to $500, and fraudulent use of a registration for the sale, distribution, or trafficking of marijuana for non-medical use for profit could be punished by up to five years in state prison or by two and one-half years in a house of correction.

Despite the major changes this new law brings to Massachusetts, there is much that this new law does not do. The law does not give a person immunity under federal law. It does not supersede the Massachusetts laws prohibiting possession, cultivation, or sale of marijuana for nonmedical purposes. The law does not allow the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. The new law also does not require a health insurer or government entity to reimburse for the costs of the medical use of marijuana. The law does not require any health care professional to authorize the medical use of marijuana. The law does not require any accommodation of the medical use of marijuana in any workplace, school bus or grounds, youth center, or correctional facility. Finally, the new law does not require any accommodation of smoking marijuana in any public place.

The new law will likely lead to confusion, due to the supremacy of federal laws, as well as those Massachusetts laws that supersede the medical marijuana law. Other states, such as California, have had residents face federal charges, despite the state laws that allow the sale and use of medical marijuana.

Continue reading →