Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Thirty-two year old Lawrence Massachusetts man Jorge Guzman has been arrested and charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, assault and battery on a household member, mayhem, assault and battery on a child under fourteen, and malicious damage to property over $250. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that Guzman threw kitchen furniture around and eventually threw boiling water at his twenty-eight year old girlfriend, Aura Vasquez, and her young toddler. According to reports, Vasquez informed police that Guzman had been drinking and became jealous. An argument ensued that, unfortunately, became physical. Vasquez and her child suffered second and third degree burns on thier faces and other areas of their bodies. Vasquez is being treated at Massachusetts General Hospital and her daughter is at the Shriner's Hospital.

In Massachusetts, the defendant can be charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon because the boiling water is the alleged "dangerous" weapon. The case law in Massachusetts defines a "dangerous weapon" as an object that is "per se" dangerous, such as a gun or an object that can that is used in dangerous fashion. For example, a pencil would not be considered a dangerous weapon "per se," however, if it was used to poke or stab someone it would be considered a "dangerous weapon." If convicted of this offense a defendant can face up to ten years in state prison or two and one half years in jail.

Although all of the facts are not known in this case, it appears that this case stems from an incident of alleged domestic violence. In such cases, the police often inform the complaining witness of his or her right to apply for an emergency restraining order. If you believe that you are the defendant in a restraining order you should contact an experienced Massachusetts criminal lawyer. In order for a restraining order to issue the complainant must demonstrate that he or she is in reasonable apprehension of immediate physical harm. You must have an aggressive advocate on your side. If you are a defendant in a criminal case and receive notice of a restraining order hearing contact Attorney Kathleen M. McCarthy. There are many issues that must be considered such as whether it is prudent for you to speak at the hearing. In most district courts, the restraining order hearings are recorded. Thus, if you speak anything that you say could be used against during the criminal proceeding. It is imperative that you contact a Massachusetts domestic violence attorney to ensure that you understand the consequences of any actions that you take.

Continue reading " Lawrence Massachusetts Man Accused Of Assault And Battery With A Dangerous Weapon Charges Stemming For Alleged Domestic Violence " »

Forty year old Robert Manzi of Lawrence Massachusetts was arrested and charged in relation to the recent hold up of a convenience store. According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, Manzi is accused of using a hammer to effect the robbery. He made out with approximately $100.00. The police believe that Manzi is a suspect in other robberies.

The Tribune reports that Manzi is the brother of Methuen Mayor William Manzi. The Mayor explained that unfortunately his brother is a drug addict who is in need of some help. In a released statement the Mayor explained, "Too many families experience the pains and horrors associated with drug addiction and unfortunately that includes mine." Manzi will appear in the Lawrence District Court on August 5th and faces a hearing to determine whether he is a danger to the community.

Based on the facts of this case Manzi could face charges of armed robbery and/or assault by means of a dangerous weapon. The dangerous weapon in this case would be the hammer. In Massachusetts if a defendant is convicted for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon he or she faces the potential penalty of 10 years in state prison, 21/2 years in the house of correction, a fine of not more than $5,000 or both.

In order to establish that the object used is a "dangerous weapon" the Commonwealth must prove that the object is one capable of doing serious damage to the victim of the assault. See, M.G.L.A. 265 § 15A. An object does not have to be "per se" dangerous such a a gun.
In Massachusetts an ordinary item can be considered “dangerous weapons,” when it is employed in a dangerous manner. For example, even a pencil can be considered a dangerous weapon if it is used to poke or stab someone.

Continue reading " Lawrence Massachusetts Man Faces Criminal Charges Stemming From A Hold Up Of A Convenience Store Using A Hammer " »

According to The Boston Globe, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested and charged with being a disorderly person after he was seen forcing open a jammed door to his home. The police responded to a report that an individual was breaking into Gates' home. Gates maintains that the Cambridge Massachusetts police arrested him after he identified himself and established that he lived in the home. A person is “disorderly” under Massachusetts statute if a person engages in fighting, threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior which creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. See, M.G.L. 272 § 53. The actions of the defendant must be something other than speech. Furthermore, the “public” element is satisfied if the act affects or is likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.

Although all of the facts relating to the Gates case are not known, the fact that the defendant was arrested at his home may have been a factor in the decision to dismiss the charges against the defendant. The fact that Gates was in his home seems to support the position that his conduct was not likely to affect persons in a place where the public had a right to access.

If you are charged with the crime of disorderly person in Massachusetts it is imperative that you have an experienced Massachusetts defense attorney on your side. Depending on the facts of the case, a motion to dismiss may be appropriate in the event that the Commonwealth did not have probable cause to arrest because the alleged conduct was not likely to affect the public.

If convicted of disorderly person a defendant faces the possibility of serving six months in jail or being assessed a fine of two hundred dollars or both. Although the crime of disorderly person is a misdemeanor, a conviction of any kind may have collateral consequences in your private and/or work life. Having an experienced criminal trial attorney on your side can make a big difference.

Continue reading " Cambridge Massachusetts Man Charged With Disorderly Person " »

A twenty-four year old Lowell Massachusetts man has been charged with with assault and battery on a pregnant woman, unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, assault and battery, threatening to commit a crime and improper storage of a firearm. The Lowell Sun reports that police responded in the early morning hours to a residence on Whipple Street as the result of reports that a man was waving a shotgun at other individuals. The criminal charges against the Lowell defendant stem from an incident where he allegedly struck a pregnant woman and waved a sawed off shotgun in her face. After determining that a shotgun had been used in the incident, the police confiscated a 12-gauge shotgun and ammunition from the apartment.

In Massachusetts, the charge of assault and battery is a misdemeanor and is punishable by up to two and one half years in jail. However, the enhanced charge of assault and battery on a pregnant woman provides for a harsher sentence of up to five years in state prison or up to two and one half years in jail.

In order to prove the crime of assault and battery on a pregnant woman the Commonwealth must prove that the victim was pregnant, that the defendant reasonably caused her to fear an immediate attack from the defendant; that this fear led her to try to escape from or defend herself against the defendant; and that she received more than a trifling bodily injury while trying to defend herself or escape. See, M.G.L.A. 265 § 13A.

If you have been charged with a crime in Massachusetts it is important that you have experience, strategy and know how on your side. Attorney McCarhy routinely appears in courthouses across the state and protects the rights of her clients accused of crimes. Depending on the facts of the case it may be appropriate to assert a claim of self-defense or mistaken identification. Effective pre-trial investigation is critical to ensure that you are effectively represented.

Continue reading " Lowell Massachusetts Man Faces Criminal Charges Of Assault And Battery On A Pregnant Woman And Illegal Possession Of A Firearm " »

According to The Lowell Sun, Darren Wilson from Lawrence Massachusetts faces criminal charges including mayhem, assault and battery causing serious bodily injury and two counts of assault and battery as a result of a fight in front of Jay's Food Market in Lowell Massachusetts. According to reports, Wilson and Domingo Sanchez engaged in a fight. During the fight Wilson, who was apparently losing, grabbed Sanchez's foot and twisted it "180 degrees" according to prosecutors. While Sanchez was laying on the ground, Wilson is accused of punching Sanchez in the head before leaving the area. Sanchez required surgery to repair his foot and is reportedly using a cane while experiencing constant pain.

Although all of the facts are not known at this time, it appears that the defendant may have a viable claim of self-defense. In Massachusetts, once a claim of self-defense is raised the Commonwealth must prove one of the following things beyond a reasonable doubt:That the defendant did not reasonably believe he was being attacked or about to be attacked; or That the defendant did not do everything reasonable in the circumstances to avoid physical combat; or That the defendant used more force to defend himself than was reasonably necessary in the situation. In cases where self-defense or defense of another is asserted it is often important to conduct extensive pre-trial investigation so that all favorable witnesses can be interviewed, located and summonsed to testify at trial If you are facing criminal charges and believe that you have a valid claim of self defense an expereinced criminal defense attorney is necessary to ensure that your side of the story is properly presented to the jury.

Continue reading " Lawrence Massachusetts Man Charged With Assault And Battery And Related Criminal Charges Following A Fight In Front Of a Local Store " »

A Salem Massachusetts woman, Kristen LaBrie, 37 years old, faced a judge in the Salem District Court and pleaded not guilty to charges that she committed attempted murder, assault and battery on a disabled person, wanton or recklessly permitting assault and battery on a child causing serious injury and child endangerment by withholding life saving chemotherapy treatment for her son. The Salem News reported that the Salem mom failed to fill prescriptions for and provide a liquid chemotherapy drug for her nine year old son who has since died.

During LaBrie's arraignement, the prosecutor stated that the authorities became suspicious when after being told to temporarily suspend the child's chemotherapy treatment because of the flu, LaBrie never followed up with the doctors to resume treatment. This conduct piqued the curiosity of the doctors. The Salem News reports that follow up revealled that multiple prescriptions for the child's medication had gone unfilled. LaBrie initially insisted that it must have been a mistake at the pharmacy however, it was later learned that the insurance company also had no record of paying for the prescriptions. The child ultimately died as a result of the cancer that the News reports was initially considered 90% curable.

In Massachusetts, the crime of simple assault and battery is considered a misdemeanor which is punishable by up to two and one half years in jail. See, M.G.L.A. 265 § 13A. The Massachusetts criminal charge of assault and battery on a child causing serious bodily injury is governed by M.G.L.A. 265 § 13J. If a defendant is found guilty of committing this criminal offense he or she can face up to five years in state prison and up to two and one half years in jail. For the purposes of assault and battery on a child causing serious bodily injury, anyone under the age of fourteen is considered a child. Furthermore, bodily injury is defined as follows:
". . . substantial impairment of the physical condition including any burn, fracture of any bone, subdural hematoma, injury to any internal organ, any injury which occurs as the result of repeated harm to any bodily function or organ including human skin or any physical condition which substantially imperils a child's health or welfare."

Continue reading " Salem Massachusetts Woman Faces Criminal Charges Including Attempted Murder And Assault And Battery On Her Disabled Son " »

It appears that the recent robbery of the Dunkin' Donuts located at 334 Lynnway in Lynn Massachusetts was an inside job. According to the Lynn Item, an employee of the establishment, 43-year-old Margaret Young and her boyfriend, Theron Grady conspired to rob the coffee shop during Young's shift. It has been reported that the police responded to the location as the result of a call for a robbery in progress. The responding officers spoke with Young and another employee who maintained that a Hispanic male dressed in gray had jumped over the counter and stole money. Although Young failed to identify her boyfriend as the culprit, the other employee positively identified Grady as the robber. It is also alleged that Grady is on a video tape jumping over the counter and taking an undetermined amount of cash. When the couples' scheme was apparently exposed the woman was fired and the pair is facing charges of unarmed robbery, conspiracy to commit a crime and malicious destruction of property. According to reports, Young directed an employee to "go home" prior to the robbery and face an additional charge of intimidation of a witness.

In Massachusetts, if the defendants do not have extensive criminal records there is a chance that the Essex County District Attorney's Office will reduce the unarmed robbery charge to larceny of property. A reduction in the charge will enable the case to be resolved in the district court as opposed to the superior court. The charge of unarmed robbery can only be prosecuted in the superior court. However, the charge of larceny over $250.00 can be proceed in the district court.

In Massachusetts, in order for the Commonwealth to prove larceny, it must establish that the defendant took the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. If you have been charged with any crime it is important that you have a Lynn criminal lawyer on your side. Depending on the facts of the case, it is important to develop a theory of defense as soon as possible. In this case, it appears that the Commonwealth will have to proceed against Young under the theory of joint venture. In Massachusetts, the test relative to whether a defendant is a "joint venturer" is whether the defendant was (1) present at the scene of the crime, (2) with the knowledge that another intends to commit the crime or with intent to commit a crime, and (3) by agreement is willing and available to help the other if necessary.

Continue reading " Lynn Massachusetts Couple Face Criminal Charges Stemming From Dunkin' Donuts Robbery " »

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. – (June 25, 2009), the United States Supreme Court held that in a prosecution for a drug offense the introduction of certificates of analysis from Massachusetts drug crime laboratories violated a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses against him at a trial. The Supreme Court recognized that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The Court has been narrowing the exceptions that state courts have carved from the Constitution to make prosecutions easier and more convenient for the government. Melendez-Diaz relied on the holding in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004) in which the Court reaffirmed the basic tenet of the constitution that a defendant has a right to confront those “who ‘bear testimony’” against him. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004).

Melendez-Diaz, affirmed Crawford’s holding that a witness’s testimony against a defendant is thus inadmissible unless the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable, the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. In Melendez-Diaz, the Court discussed that the Crawford opinion described the class of testimonial statements covered by the Confrontation Clause as follows: “Various formulations of this core class of testimonial statements exist: ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent—that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially; extrajudicial statements . . . contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions; statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” Id., at 51–52. The Court held that relative to a Massachusetts drug “certificate,” which the court concluded was the functional equivalent of an affidavit, there is little doubt that the document fell within the “core class of testimonial statements.”

This landmark decision will have the effect of forcing the government to meet its burden in all Massachusetts drug cases. Based on the language in the opinion, it also appears Massachusetts criminal defense attorneys should object during the prosectuion of gun offenses to the admission of ballistic certificates when the District Attorney moves to introduce them without a live witness. The reasoning in Melendez-Diaz requires the exclusion of the certificate as rank hearsay and a violation of the defendant's rights to confront witnesses against him or her.

Continue reading " Supreme Court Ruling In Suffolk County Cocaine Case Will Benefit Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyers " »