Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: October 29, 2012

Natick Man Charged with Unarmed Robbery

A Natick man was arrested on Monday, October 22, and charged with unarmed robbery and disorderly conduct, according to the Metro West Daily News. The arrest occurred around 1:30 p.m. outside of a Dunkin’ Donuts on 245 North Main Street in Natick.

Witnesses claim they saw the man and a woman yelling and struggling before the man allegedly ran away with her purse. Witnesses reportedly stopped and held the man until police arrived. The man claims he was trying to get $200 back that his ex-girlfriend stole from him.

The man posted $200 bail after his arrest. However, the probation department asked for him to be held on a probation detainer. The man was placed on probation last month for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, based on a Framingham arrest in 2011. The judge at the Framingham District Court did not order the man to be held on the probation detainer. Rather, the judge increased the bail to $400. The man is due back at the Framingham District Court for a pretrial conference on November 4th.
The man’s claim that he was only trying to get the $200 back that his ex girlfriend stole from him did not persuade the judge to dismiss the charges against him. However, the man has not been convicted, yet. The Commonwealth must prove that he robbed the alleged victim beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict him.

In order to prove the man guilty of unarmed robbery, the Commonwealth must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The first element the Commonwealth must prove is that the man either applied actual force and violence to the body of the alleged victim or put the alleged victim in fear by threatening words or gestures. The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant took the money or other property with the intent to steal it. Finally, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant took the money or other property from the immediate control of the victim. If the Commonwealth is successful in convicting the man, he could be facing up to life in prison.

An experienced attorney could help the man assess his possible defenses and decide on the best course of action. The Fifth Amendment could help him overcome these charges. The alleged victim is the man’s former girlfriend. The man claims that she stole money from him that he was trying to recover. His former girlfriend may want to “take the Fifth” in this case and not implicate herself in any possible crimes by testifying against him, including theft or assault and battery due to the alleged struggle that ensued between them. However, because this incident happened outside of a Dunkin Donuts, there are other witnesses that the Commonwealth may call. Therefore, even if the man’s former girlfriend exercises her Fifth Amendment right not to testify against him, the Commonwealth may be able to convict the man based on the other witnesses’ testimony. Additionally, even if the money the man took belonged to him, he allegedly stole his former girlfriend’s entire purse, not just the money. The Commonwealth could make a successful case for robbery based on the taking of the purse, even if the money inside belonged to the man.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 23, 2012

Framingham Man Arrested for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon

By Daniel Cappetta

A Framingham man was arrested at approximately 3:30 pm on Tuesday and charged with two counts of assault and battery and one count of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, according to an article in the Metro West Daily News. Police reportedly found him walking on Beaver Park Road shortly after they were called to a Second Street home for a report of an assault.

The 49 year-old man is accused of throwing his girlfriend against a washing machine, slapping her, and choking her 21 year-old daughter. The man’s girlfriend, 47, allegedly sustained a minor lower back injury from being thrown into the washing machine.

The man was allegedly arguing with his girlfriend about the amount of medication he has been taking when he became angry and violent. When the girlfriend’s daughter tried to intervene, the man reportedly began choking her before letting her go and leaving. Police stated that thegirlfriend had a bruise on her back and the daughter had marks on her neck.

The man pleaded not guilty at his arraignment on Wednesday at the Framingham District Court. He was released without bail and is due back in court on November 28 for a pretrial conference
The man is facing serious charges. Assault and battery are misdemeanor offenses that often do not lead to incarceration. However, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon is felony that may lead to jail time. The article does not specify whether the man has been charged with intentional assault and battery with a dangerous weapon or if he is charged with reckless assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. What the prosecution will need to prove depends on whether the charge is reckless or intentional.

If he is charged with intentional assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, prosecutors will have to prove that he touched the victim, intended to touch the alleged victim, and that the touching was done with a dangerous weapon. The dangerous weapon in this case is the washing machine. Massachusetts considers many different objects to be dangerous weapons. However, they do not have to prove that he intended to cause injury to the victim. If his charge is reckless assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, prosecutors will have to prove that he caused injury to the alleged victim–which was serious enough to interfere with the alleged victim’s health or comfort, that the bodily injury was done with a dangerous weapon, and that he acted in a reckless manner. Negligent conduct is not enough; the person charged must have acted in a way that the law considers reckless. In other words, the prosecutors have to prove that the person charged knew or should have known that their conduct was very likely to cause substantial harm. However, they do not need to prove that he intended to harm or strike the alleged victim. The main difference between the two charges is that intentional assault and battery with a dangerous weapon requires prosecutors to prove that the defendant intended to touch the alleged victim. In this case, the man is likely facing intentional assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

Often, when a person is facing charges of assault and battery or assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, he or she will use self-defense as a legal defense against the charge. The man would likely face difficulties using this defense unless he can establish that he felt threatened by his girlfriend and/or her daughter.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 15, 2012

Three Framingham Teens Charged With Breaking and Entering a Motor Vehicle

By Daniel Cappetta

The Metrowest Daily News has recently published an article regarding three teenagers from Framingham who are facing multiple charges in connection with a crashed stolen car. Police allege that the three teenagers stole a car from Natick and then crashed the car into a stone wall around 2:00 a.m. Monday, October 8th near 1300 Worcester Road. Police allege that the three teenagers stole GPS equipment, sunglasses, cell phones, and iPods out of cars parked at the Chapel Hill apartments near the scene of the accident. Police also allege that police found half an ounce of marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and a stun gun upon searching the stolen car after the accident.

One of the teens was charged with possession of a stolen car, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, leaving the scene of personal injury, as well as seven counts of possession of stolen property worth less than $250. The second teen was charged with possession of a stolen vehicle, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, seven counts of possession of stolen property worth less than $250, and possession of tools commonly used by burglars. The second suspect was also charged with possession of a dangerous weapon. Police allege that he was in possession of a stun gun. Both of these two teens were ordered held without bail Tuesday October 9th because they have outstanding cases.

A third teen suspect was not arraigned because he was in the hospital. Police report he was found injured in the crashed car when the other two suspects were found in the woods near the crash. He is charged with possession of a stolen car, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, possession of tools commonly used by burglars, eight counts of possession of stolen property worth less than $250 and had a default warrant, police said.

Each of the suspects in this case is facing jail time if he is convicted of some, or all, of his charges. They are all facing the serious charges of possession of a stole vehicle, as well as possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Though suspects facing these charges may be able to negotiate down to lesser charges that do not include jail time, the two teens found in the woods have outstanding cases and are now being held without bail. Because they have outstanding charges, they have less room to bargain for a light sentence. The third suspect is also facing these serious charges and has a default warrant. A default warrant means that he failed to appear in court previously. This default likely means he has faced criminal charges in the past. It also means that he has less room to bargain for reduced charges or a light sentence if he has had previous criminal convictions and has failed to appear in court in the past.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 10, 2012

Marlborough Man Charged with Drug Crimes in School Zone

By Daniel Cappetta

A recent news article states that a man from Marlborough was arrested on Thursday on charges of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and two counts of a drug violation in a school zone, as well as conspiracy to violate Massachusetts’s drug laws. The man allegedly told police after he was arrested that he picks up as much as 2 ounces of cocaine per week to sell in Marlborough; police further allege that he admitted to selling marijuana while being questioned at the time of his arrest. The man allegedly told police that he sells drugs to support his son.

Marlborough Police, state police with search dogs and agents of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reportedly went to the man’s home at approximately 11:15 a.m. Thursday with a search warrant. Police reportedly conducted surveillance and handcuffed the man after he came outside to his car. Police then reportedly searched his home. Police allege that they found packaged marijuana and several thousands of dollars in cash in the man’s home, located at 21 Preston St. in Marlborough. Police also allege that they found two digital scales, often used for weighing drugs, with white residue that tested positive as cocaine. The man’s home is located near a day care center, which is why he is facing a drug violation in a school zone.

The man posted and was released on $250 bail Thursday, according to record. However, when he allegedly failed to appear in court on Friday for his arraignment, a warrant was issued for his arrest.

The man reportedly has three other open cases at this time, including a charge of possession of a class B substance with intent to distribute in Lawrence District Court, breaking and entering in the daytime with intent to commit a felony, and knowingly receiving stolen property. Most of the charges he faces are felonies.

The man is facing jail time if he is convicted of the crimes with which he is charged. Since he is charged with intent to sell cocaine in a school zone, he is facing a mandatory minimum two years of time in a house of corrections, even if this is his first offense. Additionally, that sentence will have to be served consecutively after any jail time he receives from the underlying charge of possession with intent to distribute. This rule means that he would have to serve the two years for being in a school zone after he serves his time for possession with intent to distribute. Since the man has other open charges, as well, he could be facing even more jail time if convicted of those charges.

The possession with intent to distribute in a school zone laws in Massachusetts are quite severe. A person can be convicted of a drug violation in a school zone if they are found committing the underlying drug crime within 300 feet of a school or 100 feet of a public park or playground between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. You can be charged with this crime even if you are in your own home at the time of your arrest if your home is located near a school. Because the laws require a mandatory two year sentence if you are found within a school zone, the District Attorney’s Office has significant leverage in any plea negotiations that may occur in the case.

Additionally, failing to appear in court can have ramifications in the future if you end up being arrested again. Judges are hesitant to release defendants on personal recognizance or low bail amounts if the defendant has a history of failing to appear in court, even when that defendant has only been arrested and failed to appear one time. Failing to appear in court after an arrest is called a “default,” and every default makes it more likely that your bail amount will be higher the next time you are arrested.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 17, 2012

Two Women Arrested on Prostitution Charges in Framingham Motel

By Daniel Cappetta

Two women from Providence were arrested in the Red Roof Inn in Framingham on prostitution charges, according to The Metrowest Daily News. The women – one of whom was 30 and the other of whom was just 17 – were arrested at the Rte. 30 motel at 11:18 p.m., according to police spokesman Lt. Ron Brandolini.

Police began investigating the women on Thursday after an employee at the Red Roof Inn called the police and reported that the women were acting suspiciously, Brandolini said. After receiving the call, police went to the website “Backpages” and found what they believed to be advertisements for escorts that matched the women’s descriptions. Brandolini alleges that the police called the number, arranged to have sex for $200 an hour with the women, and were told to come to a room at the Inn. He further alleges that when police arrived, one of the women greeted an officer at the door.

According to Brandolini, the woman that answered the door initially said she was the person who answered the phone and arranged the deal; however, after her arrest, police claim to have discovered it was actually the other woman who had arranged the meeting. Police claim that the second woman was in the room next door when police arrived.
Police charged both women with prostitution.

The women were scheduled to be arraigned in Framingham District Court on Friday, September 8th. However, because no Spanish interpreter was available, both women were released and ordered to return the week of September 10th to be arraigned.

Prostitution is a misdemeanor offense in Massachusetts. People suspected of prostitution are often charged with trespassing, which is also a misdemeanor, when police do not have adequate evidence to charge them with prostitution.

The laws regarding prostitution in Massachusetts have recently been changed through legislation. The new law imposes a life sentence for anyone found guilty of trafficking children for sex or forced labor. The new law also includes a safe harbor provision for first-time offenders under eighteen, which allows prosecutors to view them as victims, rather than criminals. Anyone soliciting a prostitute would face a prison sentence of up to two and a half years and a fine of up to $5,000 if convicted. Anyone who agrees to pay for sex with someone under 18 would face a sentence of up to 10 years in prison if they are convicted.

The new law also creates a new crime: enticing a child into prostitution by electronic communication. This new law is in response to the growing use of the Internet as a human trafficking tool.

The city of Worcester is also looking to create a change in its law regarding prostitution. The new law would give the city of Worcester the authority to impound cars driven by “Johns”.

Any charge relating to engaging in prostitution is a potentially embarrassing and serious charge, with some charges being more serious than others. When you have been charged with this kind of offense, you need an experienced and dedicated Massachusetts prostitution lawyer.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 7, 2012

Three Massachusetts Cities Overuse Arrests at School, According to Study

By Daniel Cappetta

A recent article released by Citizens for Juvenile Justice details a new report about arrests in Massachusetts Schools. The report, “Arrested Futures: The Criminalization of School Discipline in Massachusetts’s Three Largest School Districts,” reviews arrest data from the 2007-08, 2008-09, and2009-10 school years, from Boston, Springfield, and Worcester schools. In all three districts, arrests for relatively minor misbehavior made up a substantial percentage, and in some cases the majority, of all school-based arrests
A substantial portion of those who are arrested in school are charged with public order offenses such as “disorderly conduct,” “disturbing a lawful assembly” and “violating codes of conduct.” These arrests are often due to behaviors associated with youthful defiance, such as talking back to teachers, refusing to sit down or comply with attempts to punish students, or writing on desks. Others are arrested for assault-related charges stemming from school yard fights.

Many schools in Massachusetts have officers on-site daily to patrol their schools. Some use officers from the town’s police, while others have officers who work for the school system. While some school districts use on-site officers to apprehend students who pose a real and immediate threat to the physical safety of those around them, others schools use these officers to mostly enforce their code of student conduct. Officers are often encouraged to arrest students, in many cases using public order offenses as a justification. These officers mostly arrest students who are unruly, disrespectful, use profanity, or show “attitude.”

In Massachusetts all seventeen year olds are automatically treated as adults for all offenses. Because of this law, an arrest can also mean the creation of a permanent, adult criminal record. It can also lead to incarceration alongside adult criminal offenders. Your child could be arrested at school for minor disruptive behavior; if your child is seventeen years old or older, your child could then have an adult criminal record from that and maybe even incarceration. These charges could have grave consequences for your child’s future.

These policies are causing more children and young adults to be arrested than would be if police were not so heavily present in schools. Infractions that would normally be a trip to the principal’s office or after-school detention are now a trip to jail and an appearance in court. These policies are worsening the “school to prison pipeline” that plagues our youth. Protecting children from being convicted of offenses, and especially from spending time incarcerated, is important to insure our children have a bright future and a clean criminal record.

If your child has been arrested, you’ll need a skilled and experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer on your side. In addition to my experience defending adults in Massachusetts Courts, I have experience defending children in the Massachusetts Juvenile Courts.

If your child is facing criminal charges or is being investigated, you need an attorney that has extensive experience in the Juvenile Court System. As a former Prosecutor in the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office, I have handled countless juvenile court cases and use this knowledge and experience in the Juvenile Court System to successfully fight for your child.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 31, 2012

Four Framingham Teens Arrested on Marijuana Charges

By Daniel Cappetta

Four teens were arrested this Tuesday in Framingham for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy to violate Massachusetts’s drug laws. Three of the teens arrested were over 17 and charges were filed in District Court. A 16-year-old teen from Framingham was also arrested and will face charges in the Juvenile Court.

Police allegedly stopped the Toyota one of the boys was driving on Nicholas Road for illegally passing another car. Upon speaking to the driver, police allegedly smelled marijuana and saw what appeared to be an ax in the vehicle. Police ordered all four people out of the car. However, what the police thought to be an ax was a pipe. Police spokesman Brandolini alleges he then found multiple containers of marijuana in the vehicle, equally about 2.5 ounces of marijuana, as well as a digital scale.

Two of the boys pleaded not guilty to their charges in Framingham District Court on Tuesday, August 28. They were released without bail and are due back in court on Oct. 12 for a pretrial conference. The 16-year-old was scheduled to be arraigned in Framingham Juvenile Court. The results of juvenile court hearings are not public. You can read more about the arrest here.

The four teens have been charged with possession with intent to distribute. This charge is commonly used to prosecute someone the police suspect of dealing drugs. Although there is no mandatory jail sentence with this charge, a prosecutor is more likely to seek jail time on this charge than on just a possession charge. Possession with intent to distribute differs from the heavier charge of trafficking. In order to prove that the teens in this case were trafficking marijuana, the police would need to prove that the amount of marijuana they possessed was in excess of 50 pounds.

Though this may appear to be a strong case against the teens, much could ride on what occurred during the traffic stop. There are many rules governing what police may and may not do in regard to traffic stops, including when police can stop a car and when police may or may not search a car. The police allege that they pulled the car over after witnessing it illegally pass another car; if this statement is true, the police likely had probable cause to stop the car. However, that does not give them an unlimited ability to search the car. Police are allowed to look for weapons when they search the car so if the police thought that the pipe was an ax, he is allowed to further inspect to insure his own safety. In this case some of the marijuana seems to have been in plain sight, which would likely not pose an issue because police are allowed to do a plain view search when they stop a car; however, the article states that some of the marijuana was found in a black bag. Since the police allege that they smelled marijuana when they stopped the car, and they allege that some of the marijuana was in plain sight, they may have had probable cause to open the black bag. Whether or not the police executed an acceptable search of the car remains to be seen. If the police overstepped their bounds, the teens may be able to get some or all of the evidence against them suppressed.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 20, 2012

Four arrested in Framingham on drug charges

By Daniel Cappetta

Police arrested two men and two women in Framingham according to the Metrowest Daily News, on Tuesday August 7th, following a stakeout of a suspected drug house . Police were observing an apartment located at 2 Coburn St. in Framingham after suspecting the resident of selling heroin out of his home.

While watching the apartment, police saw a woman exit the residence and get into a brown Toyota Camry. She then picked up a man nearby; upon pulling her vehicle over, police allegedly observed hypodermic needles and other drug paraphernalia in one of the vehicle’s seats. The police asked the driver to step out of the car. Police allege that upon searching the driver, they found a bag of heroin hidden in her shirt. Police charged the driver with possession of heroin. Her passenger was taken to the police station as well. The passenger allegedly told police that the driver and he had gone to the Cobrun Street apartment to purchase heroin.

Police allege that they then returned to Coburn Street. Police state that they then found and arrested the resident. According to Police, they then searched his apartment and found what they believe to be heroin, cocaine, suboxone and hallucinogenic mushrooms, as well as drug paraphernalia.

The resident was charged with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of suboxone, and possession of hallucinogenic mushrooms. The charges of possession with intent to distribute have been charged as subsequent offenses, meaning that the resident has been previously convicted of these same charges. A charge of possession with intent to distribute a class b substance subsequent offense carries a mandatory minimum penalty of three years imprisonment with no possibility of probation instead of jail. According to police, the resident’s girlfriend was also at the apartment when police arrived to search it. She has been charged with being present where heroin is stored.

Framingham District Court Judge Paul Yee set the resident’s bail at $50,000. However, his bail was revoked due to an open superior court drug distribution case, as well as an open case in Framingham District Court in which he was charged with possession of heroin, assault on a police officer, and resisting arrest. The court also set a bail for the woman driving the car ($500) and for the passenger ($250). The resident’s girlfriend was released on personal recognizance.

In this instance, the stakes are highest for the resident of the apartment, who is facing multiple charges of possession of drugs, as well as charges of possession with intent to distribute those drugs, subsequent offenses. He also has other open drug distribution and violent crimes cases. He is facing both misdemeanor and felony charges in multiple courts. Additionally, because police were staking out his home prior to his arrest, they most likely had evidence of his alleged drug distribution prior to his arrest. The resident is facing mandatory jail time if convicted of his charges. Someone facing such serious penalties needs an experienced criminal defense lawyer who can handle serious drug charges.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 12, 2012

New Massachusetts 3 Strikes Law Mandates Life Sentences For Many Repeat Violent Offenders

By Daniel Cappetta

3 strikes law.jpeg

Massachusetts has recently passed a law that amends its sentencing for violent criminal offenses. The new law creates what is known as a “three strikes rule.” A three strikes law, which is currently used in 26 other states including Texas, California and Arizona, makes criminals who have been convicted three times of specific violent crimes ineligible for parole, forcing them to serve a full sentence.

Governor Patrick recently signed a bill, known as Melissa’s Bill, into law. Melissa’s Law took effect on Aug 2, 2012. The bill is named for Melissa Gosule, a teacher who was murdered in 1999 by a repeat violent offender who had served only two years in prison for 27 prior convictions. The bill was created as a response to the perceived softness in Massachusetts’s laws regarding violent offenses. Under this law, a judge must now impose the maximum sentence for a person’s third violent felony offense. Many of these offenses require a life sentence when the offense constitutes a person’s third “strike.” The crime bill has drawn criticism because the three strikes constraint does not include judicial discretion. California, which pioneered the three strikes laws, is proposing to repeal or reform the law in a ballot initiative for November. The Massachusetts bill differs from the California 3 strikes law in that it has a more limited number of criminal acts that count as strikes.

The law lays out 41 crimes that constitute a strike. Persons convicted of a third strike will serve the maximum penalty and have no opportunity for parole. Nineteen of these key crimes call for a maximum sentence of natural life. This provision of the law means that Massachusetts has now gone from having one natural life felony with no possibility of parole, which was first-degree murder, to nineteen natural life felonies, if indeed the felony is a third strike.

The law also enforces the serving of previously unserved sentences to completion consecutively with the sentence imposed on the third conviction. Previously, sentences were often served concurrently, rather than consecutively. The new law also mandates a maximum sentence on the newest conviction. These sentencing requirements eliminate the judicial discretion that is allowed in some other states that have three strikes laws. Governor Patrick has expressed a desire to see some judicial discretion reintroduced to the bill, and has commented that he hopes the legislature will consider that request in the next legislative session.

The new Massachusetts habitual offender law is found in Chapter 192 of the Acts of 2012. You can see the full text of the new law here.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 31, 2012

Domestic Violence Arrest Leads to Attempted Murder Charge for Elderly Holliston Man

By Daniel Cappetta

A unique case from Framingham District Court came to my attention on Tuesday. According to an article in the MetroWest Daily News, an 84 year-old man from Holliston was arrested for an alleged attack on his 86 year-old wife. The article, written by Norman Miller, stated that Holliston police went to the man’s home early Sunday morning. The alleged victim had reportedly called 411 seeking police assistance. The 411 operator then called the Holliston police.

When they arrived at the home, police officers could hear a woman’s voice saying “stop.” The police entered the house and met the victim, who is blind and uses a walker for assistance. The alleged victim told police that her husband had been hitting her throughout the night and had tried to strangle her. According to the article, the husband spoke with police about the incident at the police station and admitted to hitting his wife and forcing her to stay seated in a chair by holding her neck. The husband allegedly told police that he committed the assault “because [his wife] wouldn’t stop talking.” He told them he lost his temper. The husband was charged with attempted murder, assault and battery on an elderly person and witness intimidation.

As a Holliston domestic violence attorney, I have represented clients charged with assault and battery in domestic violence type situations. Domestic violence cases present greater challenges than those assault and battery cases which take place between people who do not live together. This is because in a domestic violence case, victim and defendant most likely have a close family relationship. These cases may bring to light, in a very public setting, a couple or family’s private arguments or difficulties and can be emotionally painful for both victim and defendant. This particular case serves to highlight the difficulties facing those who care for the elderly and infirm, and how those stresses can build to a breaking point.

The husband is charged with assault and battery on a person over the age of 65. This is a special charge in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts based upon the age of the alleged victim. He is also charged with attempted murder, most likely based upon the allegation that he tried to strangle his wife. The case is unusual because of the age of both the alleged victim and defendant. In addition to the usual stresses of a domestic violence case, it appears that the husband provides care for his wife due to her age and condition. Since he was ordered to stay away from the house, it appears he will be unlikely to do that for the time being.

Continue reading →