Posted On: September 30, 2010

A Haverhill Massachusetts Man Charged With Receiving Stolen Property For Selling $6,000 Worth Of Jewelry Stolen From Neighborhood Homes

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that a former Zion Bible College student has been charged with selling $6,000 worth of jewelry stolen from several homes near the school. Twenty-eight year old Ruston Prothro of Cumberland Avenue in Haverill faces multiple charges of receiving stolen property valued over $250.00 in a scheme where he pawned jewelry stolen from Haverhill homes between September 14th and September 18th.

In order for the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant was guilty of receiving stolen property, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Haverhill transplant was in possession of the jewelry and knew that it was stolen. In Massachusetts, if the items were "recently stolen" that is a factor that a jury can take into consideration when deciding whether a defendant knew that a particular object was stolen. If the value of the property is valued under $250.00 the charge is considered a misdemeanor. If the value of the property is valued at over $250.00, which seems to be the case here, it is a felony offense. In Massachusetts if the potential sentence is a house of correction or jail sentence the charge is considered a misdemeanor. If a defendant faces the possibility of going to state prison then the charge is considered a felony.

If you or a family member has been charged with a crime it is important to have an experienced Boston area lawyer on your side. Before going to trial or pleading guilty a defendant should be informed of the type of potential sentence he or she may receive if convicted and whether a conviction would be a felony or a misdemeanor charge. A felony conviction may have an adverse affect on future employment opportunities.

Continue reading " A Haverhill Massachusetts Man Charged With Receiving Stolen Property For Selling $6,000 Worth Of Jewelry Stolen From Neighborhood Homes " »

Posted On: September 23, 2010

Overview of Harrassment Prevention Orders v. 209A Abuse Prevention Orders

On May 10, 2010 "An Act Relative to Harassment Prevention Orders" became effective. This statute authorizes the issuance of a "Harrassment Prevention Order" under certain conditions. Although seemingly similar to M.G.L. 209A Abuse Prevention Provision, the statutes are different relative to the eligibility provisions and relief. Although both are civil orders, an alleged violation can result in a criminal charge of violating the court order and a defendant can receive up to two and one half years in prison if convicted. Both of these orders are considered "Restraining Orders."

An individual may apply for an Abuse Prevention Order ( “209A Order”) from a judge in the following circumstances:
1. The defendant and the complainant are or were:
married, or residing together in the same household;

• or in a substantive dating or engagement relationship;

• or related by blood or marriage;

• or you have a child in common.

2. The complainant alleges that he or she is suffering from abuse because the defendant has:
harmed or attempted to harm the complainant physically, or put the complainant in fear of imminent serious physical harm, or caused the complainant to engage in sexual relations involuntarily by using force, threat or duress.

3. The complainant must:

• currently live within the geographical area of the court in which the complainant applied ofr the order;

• or used to live within the geographical area of the court but left to avoid abuse.

If a judge determines that there is a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse an Abuse Prevention Order (209A) may issue without prior notice to the defendant. If an ex-parte order issues, another hearing date is set approximatley one or two weeks after the temporary order. During this time the police will attempt to serve the defendant with notice of the order and notice of the next hearing date. At the next hearing both sides are given the opportunity to present evidence and the judge determines whether to extend the temporary order. If the judge extends the order it is generally extended for a one year period of time.

An individual may apply for a Harassment Prevention Order (“258E Order’) from a judge under the following conditions:

1. A complainant is suffering from harassment because someone has committed 3 or more acts that werewillful and malicious, Malicious” means characterized by cruelty, hostility or revenge.

These three acts must have been aimed at the complainant, and were intended to cause the complaintnt fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.

“Abuse” means causing or attempting to cause physical harm, or causing fear of imminent serious physical harm. The conduct of the defendant must in fact cause you fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property;

• or someone has caused you at least once to engage in sexual relations involuntarily by using force, threat or duress;

• or someone has committed against you at least once an act that violates any of the following statutes:
General Laws chapter 265, § 139, 13F or 13H (indecent assault and battery), 22 or 22A (rape),
23 (statutory rape), 24 or 24B (assault with intent to rape), 26C (enticing a child), 43 (criminal stalking), 43A (criminal harassment), or chapter 272, § 3 (drugging for sexual intercourse);
and you currently live within the geographical area of this court.

Similar to the 209A Order, a judge may issue a Harassment Prevention Order without prior notice to a defendant if there is a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of harassment.

If you have received notice that you are a defendant to one of these prevention orders it is imperative that you know the standards that must be met for the order to be extended. If a complainant alleges a violation of this order, a criminal complaint will issue. Also, if you are a victim of abuse and want to seek this type of order or have one extended, contact Attorney Kathleen M. McCarthy.

Continue reading " Overview of Harrassment Prevention Orders v. 209A Abuse Prevention Orders " »

Posted On: September 8, 2010

Attorney McCarthy Secures Reversal Of Dorchester Man's Conviction On Drug School Zone Violations

Boston area criminal defense attorney Kathleen McCarthy recently secured the reversal of a Dorchester man's convictions for possession of cocaine in a school zone with intent to distribute. Following a jury trial a Boston jury convicted the defendant on possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in a school zone, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in a school zone and possession of marijuana. Attorney McCarthy successfully argued that the defendant's state and federal constitutional rights to cross-examine live witnesses was violated by the introduction of the certificate of analysis relative to drugs as opposed to having the chemist that examined the product testify at trial.

If you have been charged with a drug offense or are looking to reverse a drug offense it is imperative that you have a Boston area lawyer that is knowledgeable on your side. Having an attorney that knows the law can make the difference between walking out of a courtroom or being held in the dock.

This argument stems from a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527(2009). In Melendez-Diaz The Court concluded that an analysts’ affidavits were testimonial statements, and the analysts were “witnesses” for purposes of the Sixth Amendment. Absent a showing that the analysts were unavailable to testify at trial and that petitioner had a prior opportunity to cross-examine them, petitioner was entitled to “‘be confronted with’” the analysts at trial. Attorney McCarthy successfully argue that applying these tenet to the case at bar, the case must be reversed.

Continue reading " Attorney McCarthy Secures Reversal Of Dorchester Man's Conviction On Drug School Zone Violations " »