Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The Salem News reported that an eighteen year old was charged with two counts of rape, assault and battery and witness intimidation on a college student. According to the prosecutor, the pair left a party and went to the defendant's home when the incident occurred. At the arraignment it was represented that the defendant's sister and mother were home and did not hear anything. The defendant denies the charges.

In order to prove the defendant guilty of rape the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with another compelled by force and against the complainant's will or compelled by threat of bodily injury. The term “threat" only requires that the threat cause fear reasonable in the circumstances so that it was reasonable for the complainant not to resist. The force used to accomplish rape does not have to be physical force.

There is well settled case law that relates to situations when there is a question relative to whether the complainant was compelled to engage in intercourse against her will. In Massachusetts, the fact that an individual obtained intercourse via fraud in the inducement does not constitute force necessary for rape. For example, the Supreme Judicial Court recently held that a rape did not occur where the defendant impersonated the complainant's boyfriend in order to engage in sexual intercourse, and the complainant believed that she was engaging in relations with her boyfriend.

Continue reading " Essex County Man Charge With Rape, Assault And Battery " »

According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune Andrew Jackson, 30, and Melinda Sybert, 23 were arrested in their apartment during the execution of a Haverhill search warrant. According to the police, the warrant charged the couple wih with larceny, identity fraud, forgery and receiving stolen property. During the execution of the search warrant a police officer noticed items purchased with stolen credit cards. According to the article, Jackson was already a suspect in about a half-dozen car breaks in town and police were investigating surveillance video from one of the stores where Jackson was using the credit cards to buy things. Jackson was charged with breaking and entering into a motor vehicle during the nighttime, breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony, malicious destruction of property and receiving stolen property.

If you, a family member or a friend are charged with larceny, identity fraud, forgery or receiving stolen property in Boston, Haverhill, Lawrence or the surrounding areas, contact local experienced trial attorney Kathleen M. McCarthy to begin working on your defense immediately.

If convicted of malicious destruction of property and if such destruction is willful and malicious, you can receive a state sentence of up to ten years. If the destruction of property is deemed to be wantons, as opposed to willful, the penalty imposed can be up to two and one half years in jail. There are also alternative sentences that may be imposed depending on the amount of damage incurred as a result of the criminal behavior.

Continue reading " Execution of Haverhill Search Warrant Results in Numerous Charges Against Local Couple " »

A State Police Trooper pulled over a car claiming that the driver was traveling "too close" behind the car in front of it in the passing lane. The Trooper asked the driver for his license and registration. The driver produced a valid passport however, the Trooper ordered him out of the car. While the driver was standing at the rear of the car, the Trooper frisked and searched him. During this search the Trooper felt what he believed to be a vile in the driver's front right pocket. He retrieved the vile and found which he believed contained oxycontin pills. After placing the defendant under arrest, the Trooper searched the car and found a grater with residue of a controlled substance.

The driver was arrested and charged with illegal possession of controlled substances. I filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence claiming that the stop, search and subsequent confiscation of the vile and its contents from the defendant and the retrieval of the grate from the car violated the driver's state and federal constitutional rights to privacy.

The motion specifically moved to suppress from the use in evidence of all evidence seized from ththe driver or from the car. The supporting reasons that I gave were the following:

1. said evidence was not seized pursuant to a lawful arrest;
2. it was not in plain view;
3. there was no probable cause;
4. no warrant;
5. no exigent circumstances;
6. not pursuant to a lawful stop-and-frisk;
7. not consented to;
8. the search and/or inquiry of the defendant was conducted without probable cause, reasonable suspicion or exigent circumstances;
9. the search was a “pretextual search”;
10. the search was not done in conformity with written police inventory policy;
11 the search was in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Article 14 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and G.L. c. 276.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the judge agreed with me and allowed the motion to suppress. Based on this ruling, the Commonwealth had no case and moved to dismiss all charges against the driver.

If you, a loved one or a friend is charged with possession of drugs, possession with intent to distribute drugs or trafficking in controlled substances contact Boston area Attorney Kathleen M. McCarthy immediately and I can get to work on your case.