Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A Salem Massachusetts teenager is being held in the Essex County jail where he will remain for up to ninety days without the possibility of being released on bail, following a "dangerousness hearing" in the Salem Superior Court. According to The Salem News, eighteen year old Michael Ehlert was held following testimony from a seventeen year old special needs student who described what the judge called a "fairly vicious beating." According to the paper, Judge John Lu stated that he believed that it is "reasonable" to believe that Ehlert might follow through on his threat to slit the throat of the complaining witness and have his mother sexually assaulted if he is released. Testimony of this alleged intimidation was a factor Lu relied on in concluding that there were no terms of release that would protect the safety of the boy, his mother or the public at large.

The witness testified that after he left his house to buy cigarettes at the store, Ehlert and a co-defendant dragged him into a Marblehead cemetery and beat him. Defense counsel highlighted inconsistencies between the teenager's initial statement to the police and his "official" version given nine days after the incident. Despite pressing by counsel, the witness maintained that the relationship between Ehlert and himself was limited to interaction at the town's skateboard park with mutual friends. Ehlert and eighteen year old Michael "Tampa" Leoni are facing charges that include robbery, assault and battery, and witness intimidation. Ehlert's twenty-two year old brother is facing a charge of witness intimidation. It is alleged that the made phone calls to the witness following Michael Ehlert's arrest.

Based on the facts in this case it appears that a thorough pre-trial investigation must be conducted to determine the motive for the complaining witness to change his story. Massachusetts General Laws 268 § 13B states that the crime of witness intimidation requires proof that (1) an individual was a witness in a stage of a criminal proceeding, and that the defendant (2) willfully endeavored or tried to influence the witness, (3) did so by means of intimidation, force, or threats of force, or the offering of inducements, and (4) did so with the specific intent of influencing the witness. Based on Massachusetts case law, it is not necessary that charges be lodged at the time of any alleged intimidation. "Any stage of a criminal proceeding" may encompass actions committed by a defendant before the police was called or the alleged crime was reported. For example, the authorities often charge a defendant with "intimidation of a witness" when a complainant alleges that the defendant took his or her phone in an effort to prevent the reporting of a crime.

Continue reading "Essex County Superior Court Judge Holds Marblehead Teenager Without Bail Following "Dangerousness Hearing"" »

Posted by Kathleen M. McCarthy | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Assault and Battery

Bookmark:

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that a Lawrence Massachusetts man faces a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years in state prison if convicted of charges stemming from a drug bust. Marcelo Perez, 48, of 210 Lawrence St., was charged with drug crimes including two counts of trafficking cocaine, two counts of unlawful possession of a handgun, two counts of unlawful possession of ammunition and possession of a dangerous weapon.

Three local authorities worked together focusing on suspected drug activity in the Dunkin' Donuts parking lot on Main Street in Haverhill Massachusetts. Reports indicate that when he was arrested Perez had loaded .38 caliber pistol and 305 grams of cocaine in his jacket. With the assistance of the Tewksbury K9 unit, police discovered a hidden compartment in the back floor of Perez's jeep. It has been reported that the authorties seized an additional 30.7 grams of cocaine another loaded handgun, a box of ammunition and a digital scale. Police estimated the street value of the cocaine at $6,500.

If you have been charged with any drug crime in Massachusetts, it is imperative that you have an experienced defense attorney on your side. Most drug arrests stem from a search that has been conducted by the police. Attacking the legality of the search is often times the first step to a successful litigation of a drug offense. Depending on the circumstances of the case, this is done by filing a motion to suppress evidence seized from a defendant, his or her car and/or his or her home or apartment. Attorney McCarthy has successfully litigated these types of motions. If the evidence is suppressed the government is left without a case.

Based on the recent Supreme Court decision of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, it is imperative that a qualified defense lawyer attack any drug certificate that the District Attorney attempts to introduce in order to establish that the seized substance is in fact an illegal drug. The Supreme Court has indicated that the Commonwealth cannot merely introduce a drug certificate to prove that a retrieved product is contraband. Based on this new case law, in most cases, the Commonwealth is required to produe a chemist that examined the item and determined that is was an illegal drug. The Courts and the District Attorneys' offices are scrambling to try to get around this requirement. If you find yourself facing drug charges you must have an experienced Massachusetts criminal lawyer on your side to fight for all of your rights.

Continue reading "Lawrence Massachusetts Man Faces Mandatory Jail Sentences Stemming From Drug And Gun Charges In Haverhill District Court" »

Posted by Kathleen M. McCarthy | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Assault and Battery By Means Of A Dangerous Weapon , Drug Crimes , Firearm Offenses , Search and Seizure , Weapon Offenses

Bookmark:

A District Court Judge refused to accept state Senator Anthony Galluccio's claim that he did not have any alcohol during his home confinement. The Boston Herald reports that after pleading guilty last month to leaving the scene of an accident causing personal injury, the embattled senator was sentenced to six months of home confinement. The Judge imposed strict conditions of probation including that the thirsty senator not ingest alcohol during his stay at home. He was allowed to leave his house to go to the Senate and vote and to go to church. The Herald reports that the same day that the breathalyzer machine was put in Galluccio's home, the machine measured alcohol on his breath four times. The positive readings led the probation officer to serve Galluccio with a notice to have him surrendered due to a violation of his probation conditions. Although initially winning the court battle to remain out of jail for Christmas, he lost the war at the final surrender hearing and was sentenced to one year in jail.

Many defendants believe that they are home free when they walk out of the courthouse on probation. However, a large number of individuals find themselves in prison due to the fact that they did not live up to the terms of their probation. If you have been served with a notice from your probation officer that you have violated the terms of your probation it is important that you have an experienced defense lawyer on your side. At a preliminary hearing the probation officer must present evidence indicating that you have in fact violated your probation. A skillful attorney will argue that the probation department failed to meet the initial threshold. During a final surrender hearing it is critical that a defendant has a prepared, persuasive and organized attorney on his or her side to prevent a defendant from being surrendered and possibly imprisoned.

Continue reading "District Court Judge Sentences Embattled Senator Galluccio To One Year Following Probation Surrender Hearing" »

Posted by Kathleen M. McCarthy | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Probation Surrender Hearings

Bookmark:

Actor Charlie Sheen has been arrested and charged with menacing a deadly weapon, second-degree felony assault and criminal mischief. According to The Aspen Daily News, upon conviction, felony menacing usually carries a potential sentencing range of one to three years in prison, and second-degree assault usually carries a range of two to six years in prison. Criminal mischief in Colorado does not include a mandatory minimum prison sentence upon conviction.

Sheen's arrested was prompted by a 911 call to the police from his wife Brooke Mueller. According to reports, an argument began when Meuller informed Sheen that she wanted a divorce and custody of their twin boys. Mueller claimed that Sheen grabbed her by the upper neck and threatened her with a knife. It has been reported that Mueller had high levels of alcohol in her system at the time she made the report. As we all know, there are two sides to every story. Sheen denies his wife's allegations. This type of case is categorized as a case of "domestic violence." When police are called to a residence because of an allegation of "domestic abuse" usually one of the parties is arrested and it is usually the man.

If you have been arrested and charged with a crime of domestic violence you must have an experienced Massachusetts defense lawyer on your side. In most circumstances, the police advise the complaining party of his or right to have a civil restraining order. The standard for the issuance of a restraining order is low. Although a restraining order is a civil order, criminal charges may issue if there an allegation that the restraining order has been violated.

If you have been charged in a case of "domestic violence," developing a strategy and conducting a complete investigation must take place early. Based on the facts of the case it is often important to document and/or photograph any injuries to the defendant, interview witnesses and take pictures of the scene in order to mount a successful defense.

Continue reading "Actor Charlie Sheen's Arrest Stems From Domestic Dispute" »

Posted by Kathleen M. McCarthy | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Assault and Battery , Celebrity Crimes , Domestic Assault and Battery

Bookmark:

Apparently, disgraced Senator Anthony D. Galluccio did not take advantage of the tremendous break he was given when a Cambridge District Court Judge allowed him to serve six months in home confinement. Galluccio received an early Christmas present when he was sentenced to six months home confinement on the condition that he submit to random alcohol testing, lose his license for five years and pay a $1,000.00 fine after he admitted to operating under the influence of alcohol, commonly referred to as "DUI" in Massachusetts, and leaving the scene of an accident causing personal injury. So far, Galluccio avoided serving the mandatory six month sentence in prison. However, he faces a detention hearing later on today.

According to The Boston Herald, because he failed "several" breath tests while under home confinement the probation department has issued a notice of detention which requires Galluccio to appear in court and explain why he should not be committed for violating his terms of probation. Apparently, Galluccio is blaming his toothpaste for his failed tests. The Herald reports that Galluccio stated the following after he was served with a detention notice, "[W]hile I knew that mouthwash or cold medicine would set the machine off, it did not occur to me that toothpaste would.” Despite the allegation, Galluccio maintains that he "fully committed to sobriety and continuing treatment, and remain focused on serving my constituents.”

In Massachusetts, a probation detention hearing is the first step that the probation department takes when seeking confinement for a probationer. Generally, notice of e detention hearing issues when a probation officer becomes aware that a defendant has not complied with conditions of probation. In this case, the probation department is claiming that Gallucio's failure to remain alcohol free is a violation of probation and warrants "detention" or "incarceration." During the initial hearing a judge will hear the probation officer's reasons for wanting the defendant held pending a final hearing that generally takes place within ten days if a defendant is held. At both the initial and final detention or surrender hearings the defendant is given a chance to present evidence as to why he should not be surrendered. Although all of the facts of this case are not known at this time, the Senator seems to have an uphill battle on his hands as the Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz, whose office prosecuted the case, said last night Galluccio should have been tossed in jail in the first place.

If you are facing a probation detention hearing or a probation surrender hearing in Massachusetts it is important that you have an expereinced Boston defense attorney on your side. In many Massachusetts District Courts defendants are not committed to jail because of the initial conviction however, as the result of a probation surrender. The consequences for not prevailing at a surrender hearing are high as a defendant may face serving the maximum sentence allowed for the underlying conviction.

The standards that the probation department must meet during surrender hearings are lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that the Commonwealth must meet at trial to sustain a conviction. If you are facing a surrender hearing it is imperative that you have a qualified Massachusetts lawyer on your side to navigate you through the process.

Continue reading "Galluccio Facing Probation Surrender In Cambridge District Court For Violating Terms Of Probation On Drunk Driving Conviction" »

Posted by Kathleen M. McCarthy | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: OUI/DUI , Probation Surrender Hearings

Bookmark:

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that a fifteen year old high school student has been charged with distributing marijuana in a school zone. According to reports, the juvenile is believed to be the person that sold marijuana to another student at the school. The principal recovered nine ten dollar bags of marijuana and twelve dollars on the juvenile. The juvenile is scheduled to appear in Lawrence Juvenile Court.

Although all of the facts in this case are not known, a defendant charged with distribution of marijuana or intent to distribute marijuana in a school zone faces a mandatory sentence of two years in jail. The fact that in Massachusetts possession of under an ounce of marijuana has been decriminalized has given many teenagers a false sense of security. Although straight possession of marijuana under an ounce is not considered a criminal offense, the possession of under an ounce of marijuana with the intent to distribute and/or the distribution of under an ounce of marijuana is a criminal offense with stiff penalties. Simply passing a joint or a small amount of marijuana to a friend is considered "distribution" in Massachusetts. There is no requirement that money pass from a "seller" to a "buyer" in order for the "seller" i.e., distributor, to be charged with distribution.

In this case, the juvenile was questioned and told the authorities that he sold the contraband in Lowell Massachusetts. Depending on the circumstances, filing a motion to suppress this statement may be appropriate. In Massachusetts, the police (or anyone acting under the color of the state) cannot interrogate or question a suspect who is in custody unless he or she has been advised of the "Miranda Rights." The "Miranda Rights" basically inform a suspect that he or she does not have to speak to the police, that he or she may contact an attorney, that anything he or she says can be used against him or her in court and that if he or she cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to him or her. In the event that the statement is suppressed, the Commonwealth's case against the juvenile for possession with intent to distribute is significantly weakened if not destroyed.

The types of factors that a finder of fact examines to determine whether a controlled substance was simply "possessed" or "possessed with intent to distribute" are the following: Whether a scale was found: Whether a large sum of money was found; Whether any cuttting implements were found such as a mirror: Whether plastic baggies were found and whether there were any admissible incriminating statements made by the defendant. The presence of any drug paraphernalia is a factor that is carefully scrutinized.

If you have been charged with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance or distribution of a controlled substance you must have an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney on your side.

Continue reading "Lawrence High School Student Charged With Distribution of Marijuana In A School Zone" »

Posted by Kathleen M. McCarthy | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Drug Crimes

Bookmark:

Apparently, everyone did not get the memo that said that this is the season for giving, not stealing. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported that hundreds of toys that were earmarked for the "needy", food and gift cards and computers were among items stolen from an Essex Street building in Lawrence Massachusetts last week. The building was the office location for a computer company, a recording studio and a school for chaplains. The stolen items included eighteen gold plated badges that were to be awarded to students at an upcoming Chaplaincy graduation.

If stealing were not enough to dampen the holiday season, the culprits left water faucets running causing overflow and additional damage to the building. Tenants who went to the recording studio during the early morning hours noticed dripping water from the ceiling. Investigation revealed that the building had been broken into and ransacked.

When the perpetrators are caught they may face a number of charges including breaking and entering a building in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony, malicious destruction of property over $250.00 and larceny over $250.00. If a person is convicted for breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony he or she faces the possibility of serving twenty years in state prison or two and one half years in jail.

In order to prove breaking and entering the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant broke and entered into a building in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony. In Massachusetts the breaking and entering are considered two distinct acts. Areas that are often litigated in these types of cases are whether the defendant actually broke into the building and/or whether he or she actually entered the premises. For example, the opening of a window or door, which was partly open, further than it was before in a manner in which was intended to be used is not considered a breaking. However, going through and open window that is not intended for use as an entrance is considered a breaking.

Although the facts of this case are not all known, in the event that anyone is arrested a viable defense may be that the individual was misidentified. As in many cases when a defendant is not arrested at the scene, an experienced Massachusetts defense lawyer must examine the circumstances under which a witness identified the defendant. The lighting, the opportunity for a witness to observe the defendant and whether the identifying witness was familiar with the defendant are a few area that must be explored.

Continue reading "Grinches Break And Enter A Lawrence Non-Profit Food Bank " »

Posted by Kathleen M. McCarthy | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Breaking and Entering

Bookmark:

The plaintiff alleged in the application for a restraining order that she was afraid to be left alone in the residence that she shared with the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that she was afraid that the defendant was "unable to control" her temper. A temporary 209 A restraining order issued based on the plaintiff's claim that the defendant verbally and emotionally abused the plaintiff. Following a hearing in which Attorney McCarthy extensively cross examined the plaintiff, the District Court judge vacated the order holding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that she was in reasonable fear of imminent physical harm.

If you have been served with a temporary restraining order in Massachusetts it is important that you know all of your rights. Although a restraining order is a civil order an alleged violation can result in the issuance of a criminal complaint. Thus, it is not always in one's best interest to agree to the continuance of the order. M.G.L. Chapter 209A states that a person "suffering from abuse" by a "family or household member" may seek protection from such abuse by application to the court for an order requiring the defendant (among other measures) to refrain from abusing or contacting the victim. "Abuse" is defined by the statute as acts "(a) attempting to cause or causing physical harm; (b) placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm; or (c) causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress." G.L.c. 209A, § 1, as amended through St. 1996, c. 450, 232. See Commonwealth v. Gordon, 407 Mass. 340, 344-345 (1990); Wooldridge v. Hickey, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 637 638-639 (1998). In deciding whether to issue such a c. 209A order, a judge must consider carefully whether serious physical harm is imminent. Smith v. Joyce, 421 Mass. 520, 523 n. 1 (1995). "Generalized apprehension, nervousness, feeling aggravated or hassled, i.e., psychological distress from vexing but nonphysical intercourse, when there is no threat of imminent serious physical harm, does not rise to the level of fear of imminent serious physical harm." Wooldridge v. Hickey, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 637, 639 (1998), citing Larkin v. Ayer Div. of the Dist. Ct. Dept., 425 Mass. 1020 (1997). The Court also reads the Legislature's language in § 1 ("attempting," "placing," and "causing") as revealing an intent to limit the definition of abuse to the present tense. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333 (1992) ("Congress' use of a verb tense is significant in construing statutes"). Language in § 3 also suggests that c. 209A was designed to allow persons presently "suffering" from abuse to seek relief. Therefore, the Court concluded that G.L.c. 209A, § 1(b), focuses on preventing imminent serious physical harm, not merely responding to past abuse. Dollan v. Dollan, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 905 (2002). If you oppose the continuance of the restraining order having an experienced Massachusetts domestic violence lawyer on your side who knows the legal standards is important.

Continue reading "Attorney McCarthy Successfully Vacates 209A Restraining Order In Lawrence District Court" »

Posted by Kathleen M. McCarthy | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Restraining Order

Bookmark:

A stop for what police believed would be a routine drunk driving arrest resulted in a Lawrence man, Silver Dubon, being arrested on outstanding warrants for threats, assault and battery and attempted murder. Dubon was initially pulled over on route 110 in Lawrence and charged with speeding, failure to use care in stopping, a marked lanes violation, driving without a license and operating under the influence of alcohol. According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, after the police determined the identity of the driver, he faced additional charges. Reports indicate that the outstanding warrants relate to a case of alleged domestic violence dating back to 2008. Although all of the facts of the case are not known at this time, the Tribune reports that over one year ago Dubon allegedly had an argument with his wife that escalated into a physical fight.

In Massachusetts operating under the influence of alcohol and assault and battery are considered misdemeanor offenses. Assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and attempted murder are felonies. A charge is a misdemeanor when the most that a defendant could be sentenced to is a committed sentence in jail or in the house of correction. If the potential penalty for a crime is committed time in state prison then the offense is considered a felony.

If you have been charged with a crime you should have an experienced Boston defense attorney on your side. If you are facing charges in Peabody, Lowell or Lawrence having a local defense lawyer on your side can make a big difference in the outcome of your case. In cases where a defendant is charged with "domestic violence" a 209 A civil restraining order is often sought by the complaining witness. Although the order itself is civil, a criminal charge may issue if there is an allegation of a violation of the order. Thus, preventing the issuance of the order by having an attorney present your side of the case is crucial.

Continue reading "Lawrence Massachusetts Man Arrested For Drunk Driving Faces Old Charges On Outstanding Warrants" »

Posted by Kathleen M. McCarthy | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Assault and Battery , Assault and Battery By Means Of A Dangerous Weapon , Domestic Assault and Battery , OUI/DUI

Bookmark:

A phone call from a concerned neighbor reporting a domestic dispute led to an unidentified forty seven year old man being wheeled from the home on a stretcher with what police described as a "very deep stab wound." The Lowell Sun reports that late last evening the police were guarding the scene and waiting for word relative to the seriousness of the man's injuries. An unidentified woman was taken to the Lowell police station for questioning.

There are a variety of turns that this case could take. Although it appears that the man suffered serious injuries, the circumstances surrounding the stabbing must be thoroughly investigated. In the event that the woman in charged with a crime charges may stem from assault and battery with a dangerous weapon to assault with intent to murder. However, as of the publication of this article, it had not been determined that the woman was even the person that committed the stabbing.

When an arrest is made in a case of "domestic violence," the complaining witness is given information relative to applying for a restraining order. If issued a 209A restraining order usually requires that the defendant refrain from abusing the plaintiff and often times orders him or her to stay away from the plaintiff's residence and sometimes children. Although it is a civil order if the defendant is accused of violating the order criminal charges may issues. The standard for issuing an order is low. If you have been served with a temporary restraining it is important that you contact an attorney to explain your rights and what to expect at the next hearing. If you want an experienced Massachusetts domestic violence attorney on your side contact Attorney Kathleen M. McCarthy.

In cases with similar facts, a potential defense would be investigating whether the individual that used the knife was acting in self-defense or in defense of another. Another aspect of the case to be examined in the event that a suspect gave an incriminating statement would be to determine whether the statement was given freely and voluntarily with knowledge of his or her "Miranda Rights."

Continue reading "Lowell Massachusetts Man Stabbed In Domestic Violence Incident " »

Posted by Kathleen M. McCarthy | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

Sixty year old Chamroeun Theam of Lowell Massachusetts has been charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol for a second time, failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, operating to endanger, having defective equipment and failing to submit his motor vehicle for inspection. According to The Lowell Sun, the charges stem from an incident when a twenty-five year old mother attempted to cross Flethcer Street with her two and four year old children. Apparently not realizing that there were pedestrians in the cross walk, Theam failed to yield and struck the stroller. The accident was witnessed by a number of bystanders including Lowell police officers. The police and emergency personnel responded to the scene. Following a number of field sobriety tests Theam was arrested and charged with the above offenses.

The most serious of the offenses that Theam faces is driving while under the influence of alcohol, commonly referred to as "drunk driving." Since this it Theam's second offense, if he is found guilty he faces a mandatory minimum sentence. M.G.L.A. 90 § 24 provides that for a conviction of a second offense the defendant shall be punished by a fine of not less than six hundred nor more than ten thousand dollars and by imprisonment for not less than sixty days nor more than two and one-half years. Any sentence imposed shall not be reduced to less than thirty days, nor suspended, nor shall any such person be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until such person has served thirty days of such sentence. The Courts routinely allow a defendant to enter and complete a two week inpatient alcohol program in lieu of serving the thirty days in the house of correction.

In Massachusetts, the consequences for a conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol are significant. If you have been charged with drunk driving it is important that you have an experienced criminal lawyer on your side to ensure that all of your rights are protected. Areas of the case that must be examined are often whether the individual was "driving" in the legal sense; whether any operation took place on a "public way"' and whether the defendant was legally under the influence of alcohol. Understanding the law and the facts are critical to mounting a successful defense.

Continue reading "Lowell Massachusetts Man Faces OUI 2nd Charge After Striking Pedestrians Crossing The Street" »

Posted by Kathleen M. McCarthy | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In:

Bookmark:

Angel Mejia, a Lawrence Police Detective, was arrested and charged with assault and battery on his sixteen year old daughter. According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, Mejia had a confrontation with his teenage daughter when he caught her attempting to sneak into the house at 5:45 a.m.. It is alleged that Mejia pushed his daughter onto the pavement, where she struck her face and suffered bruises and scrapes. It has been reported that the Detective also pushed her against the garage door and the refrigerator. This type of case is often categorized as a case of Domestic Violence and taken very seriously by prosecutors and the court system. Due to the fact that Mejia routinely works with prosecutors in the Lawrence District Court the case has been specially assigned to an Essex County Assistant District Attorney usually assigned to the Peabody District Court. The Detective was released and ordered to abide by any conditions ordered by the Department of Children and Family Services. Mejia is currently scheduled to return to court on December 21, 2009. The Tribune did not indicate whether the sixteen year sought a 209A restraining order against her father.

Based on the facts in this case, the defendant is likely charged with three counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. If convicted for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon in Massachusetts, a defendant can be sentenced to up to two and one half years in jail on each count or up to ten years in state prison on each count. Here, the "dangerous weapons" would be the pavement, garage door and refrigerator. An object may qualify as “dangerous weapon,” within the meaning of statute either because it is dangerous per se, as an instrumentality designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm, or because it is used in dangerous fashion. Although a refrigerator, pavement or garage door are not "dangerous per se", if they are used in a "dangerous fashion" they may be considered a dangerous weapon in Massachusetts. Some examples of objects that have been found to be dangerous weapons in Massachusetts that would not ordinarily be one are: pavement, sneakers, rings and a lighted cigarettes.

Continue reading "Lawrence Police Officer Charged With Assault And Battery On His Teenage Daughter" »

Posted by Kathleen M. McCarthy | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Assault and Battery , Assault and Battery By Means Of A Dangerous Weapon , Domestic Assault and Battery , Restraining Order

Bookmark: