Execution of Haverhill Search Warrant Results in Numerous Charges Against Local Couple
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.
One area that can be successfully attacked is to challenge the intent possessed by an actor charged with this offense. In order for the Commonwealth to prove its case against a defendant for willful and malicious destruction or property, it must prove beyond a reasonable dout that the actor intended both the conduct and its consequences. On the other hand, in order to prove wanton destruction of property the Commonwealth need only show that the actor was indifferent to or acted with disregard of probable consequences when he or she engaged in the conduct that is the subject of the criminal charge. The differences are subtle but significant. If you are charged with this or a similar offense contact Kathleen M. McCarthy to mount a successful criminal defense against any felony and misdemeanor charge in the Boston and surrounding areas.
