Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that there have been a string of purses stolen from parked cars around Lawrence cemeteries. A woman reported that while visiting her mother's grave a female approached her car asking for directions then stole her pocketbook. The police claim that there have been four similar purse thefts in Lawrence cemeteries including Elmwood Cemetery.

Although the crime may appear minor to the perpetrators, an individual will likely be charged with a felony offense of larceny over $250.00 for committing this type of act. In Massachusetts, the government must prove that a defendant stole the item and had a specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of her property, in this case a purse. Furthermore, the item must be valued at over $250.00. The offense is considered a felony because a defendant can receive a state prison sentence if he or she is convicted. If the Commonwealth proceeds against a defendant in district court he or she may receive up to two and one half years in jail if convicted.

If you or a loved one is charged with this type of crime, you must have an experienced Massachusetts lawyer on your side to ensure all of your rights are protected.

Continue reading "String Of Purse Thefts At Lawrence Cemeteries Put Mourners On High Alert" »

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

Posted In: Property Crimes

Bookmark:

The Salem News reports that nineteen year old Marshall Glover has been charged with stealing a woman's purse from the Salem courthouse. According to reports, after passing through the metal detector the security guard informed the woman that she could not take her cell phone into the courthouse. The forgetful visitor left her purse in the bin and departed to find a safe place for her phone. Another court visitor, who was currently on probation, placed his coat over the handbag and scooped it up after it passed through the X-Ray machine. Glover was not only charged with stealing the purse but he also faces a probation surrender hearing. It has been reported that Glover will spend approximately one month in jail without the possibility of posting bail until his next court date.

In Massachusetts, in order to prove larceny the government must prove that Glover intentionally took the purse with the intent to permanently keep it. Although the facts of this case are not all known, a viable defense in these circumstances may be that Glover accidentally picked up the purse when he picked up his jacket. If convicted of larceny in the district court a defendant can face up to two and one half years in jail.

Here, the defendant also faces a probation surrender. At a probation revocation hearing the formal rules of evidence do not apply. The standard that the probation department must meet to establish a preliminary violation in Massachusetts is probable cause: the standard at the final surrender hearing is preponderance of the evidence. The rules of admissibility at a probation hearing are less stringent than the rules of evidence at trial. For example, at a probation hearing hearsay may be admissible if it has "indicia of reliability." However, if a probation revocation hearing is based entirely on hearsay evidence of criminal conduct, the judge should place on the record a reasoned statement indicating the reliability of the hearsay evidence and a finding of good cause for the Commonwealth not producing a witness with personal knowledge of the violation. If a judge finds that a defendant has violated the terms of his probation, he or she can generally be sentenced up to the maximum number of years provided by the statute.

Continue reading "Salem Massachusetts Man Charged With Stealing Purse From Courthouse Faces A Probation Surrender Hearing And New Criminal Charges" »

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

Posted In: Property Crimes

Bookmark:

The Salem News recently reported that Jeffrey Monico and Kevin Maloney, both twenty- eight years old have been charged with crimes in connection with a number of holdups of banks located on the North Shore. The banks are located in Lawrence, Andover, Ipswich, Beverly, Peabody and Danvers and the incidents took place back in April, 2008. Their crime spree came to an abrupt halt when they were arrested last spring as they left the scene of a credit union robbery in New Hampshire.

The two men face charges of unarmed robbery related to robberies of two Salem Five branches in Danvers, Massachusetts, a Danvers Bank branch in Andover, a Sovereign Bank in Lawrence, stealing by confinement at a Sovereign Bank in Ipswich, stealing by confinement in an attempted holdup at the Bank of America in Beverly and stealing by confinement in Peabody, Massachusetts. The two men are currently being held on charges in New Hampshire and are expected to be arraigned on these charges in Massachusetts within the next few weeks.

In Massachusetts, if convicted of unarmed or armed robbery a defendant faces the possibility of receiving a life sentence. Thus, if you have been charged with a crime it is imperative that you have an experienced Massachusetts attorney on your side. Having a trial lawyer on your side from the beginning is critical to developing a successful strategy. Depending on the facts of the case, establishing that a defendant has been misidentified often involves extensive pre-trial investigation. Furthermore, if the police spoke with a defendant or conducted any type of search the case must be evaluated to determine whether a motion to suppress any statements or evidence should be filed.

Continue reading "Peabody And Saugus Massachusetts Men Indicted And Charged With Crimes Related To North Shore Robbery Spree " »

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

Posted In: Motion to Suppress Statements , Property Crimes

Bookmark:

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" »

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

Posted In: Property Crimes

Bookmark:

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that two Haverhill Massachusetts men face criminal charges following a high-speed car chase in Route I-495. The car, estimated to have been traveling over 100 miles per hour, caught the attention of a State Police Officer who was patrolling the highway. The authorities tracked the car which traveled from Amesbury Massachusetts to Haverhill Massachusetts during a chase which ranged with speeds from 55 to 85 miles per hour.

Haverhill police ultimately spotted the car in Haverhill and observed Aldis Suero and Aneudis Mendez both 23, walking nearby. Suero faces the criminal charge of receiving stolen property. According to reports, because Suero was out on bail on another matter the judge revoked his bail ordering that he be held without the possibility of posting bail. Apparently, Suero is also facing criminal charges stemming from and incident of alleged domestic violence. The specific charges are believed to be assault and battery and intimidation of a witness stemming from an incident with his girlfriend. Mendez was also arrested but is expected to be summonsed to Haverhill District Court to answer to a criminal charge of disorderly person. According to the Tribune, Suero's lawyer maintained that Suero denied that he had "no knowledge" of the car's ownership and he only knew the driver by the name of "D."

In Massachusetts, M.G.L.A. 266 § 60 is the statute that relates to the charge an punishment for receiving stolen property. The Commonwealth must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt on order for a defendant to be convicted of receiving stolen property: (1) That the property in question was stolen, (2) That the defendant knew that the property had been stolen, and (3) That defendant knowingly had the stolen property in his possession. All three of these elements must be proved in order for a defendant to be convicted. If the amount of property "received" is valued at less than $250.00 then the charge is a misdemeanor. However, if the value of the property is over $250.00 then a defendant faces the possibility of receiving a sentence to state prison and the crime is considered a felony.

Continue reading "Haverhill Massachusetts Men Face Criminal Charges Stemming From A High-Speed Car Chase On Interstate 495" »

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

Posted In: Property Crimes

Bookmark:

Joseph Lafata, 28 years old from Gloucester Massachusetts, appeared in the Salem District Court and plead not guilty to the charge of armed robbery of an Eastern Bank branch in Salem Massachusetts. According to The Salem News, Lafata was identified as the perpetrator of the robbery after three separate jurisdictions recognized him following a description or through a booking photograph from previous arrests after he became a suspect.

It is alleged that Lafata walked into the bank late in the afternoon covering his head and demanding money. The Salem News reports that the culprit threatened to shoot the teller during the hold up. Although Lafata was identified by law enforcement officers that apparently recognized him from earlier dealings, the tellers that witnessed the robbery failed to identify Lafata during a photo array. Because Lafata is charged with armed robbery which is a felony and carries a potential penalty of up to life in prison, he will likely be indicted and the case will be litigated in the Salem Superior Court.

Based on the facts of this case it appears that a reasonable defense is that the defendant has been misidentified as the perpetrator. Although all of the details are not available at this time, it would be critical to determine how the law enforcement personnel determined that Lafata was the perpetrator. Areas that must be explored include determining whether any of the witnesses that identified Lafata have any bias against him. A thorough pre-trial investigation is essential to defend this type of case.

Other types of property crimes that defendants face in district court include larceny of property valued at over $250.00 or under $250.00. The difference between the two crimes, other than the amount taken, is that larceny under is a misdemeanor and larceny over is a felony. A felony is any crime where the potential sentence includes a commitment to state prison. A misdemeanor is any crime where the potential sentence includes a commitment to the house of correction.

Continue reading "Gloucester Massachusetts Man Charged With Armed Robbery Of Eastern Bank" »

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

Posted In: Property Crimes

Bookmark:

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that an Essex County jury convicted former Department of Public Works Director James Flaherty, 67, and his son Kevin Flaherty, 37, on larceny charges. This verdict comes following a protacted trial in an Essex County Massachusetts Superior Court where the two men took the stand in their own defense.

James Flaherty faces up to five years in prison for the larceny conviction. His son faces the possibility of an increased sentence due to convictions for presenting a false claim. Although the prosecutor asked for immediate incarceration, the duo remain free at least until their sentencing hearing scheduled for June 20th.

In order to be convicted for the crime of larceny, the prosecutor must prove that the defendants took the property from another individual with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. In this case, the prosecutor's theory was that the father son team used the city account to buy hardware for their private use. In Massachusetts, a conviction for larceny of propery valued at under $250.00 is a misdemeanor, with the maximum sentence being a sentence to the house of correction. A conviction for the felony charge of larceny of property valued at over $250.00 carries the potential penalty of a committed sentence to state prison.
In the case, the government claimed that the pair commited larceny by using city accounts to buy hardware for their private use.

Continue reading "Essex County Jury Convicts Father And Son For Larceny" »

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

Posted In: Property Crimes

Bookmark:

According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, a Lawrence Massachusetts man was arrested and charged with carrying a firearm without a license, discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a building, and possession of ammunition without a firearms identification card. The Tribune reports that police were called to the Fern Street neighborhood due to reports of a man firing up to six gunshots "over his head." During the early morning hours, a neighbor heard commotion and went to his window where he saw a pair of men. One of the individuals was "holding a gun over [the other person's] head." After repeatedly firing the gun, witnesses stated that the man walked into an apartment on Fern Street in Lawrence.

The police arrested this defendant and three of his roommates. The paper reports that one of the roommates was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest while the other two were charged as keepers of a disorderly home. Police recovered a .32-caliber semiautomatic handgun behind the home. Shell casings were also recovered from the street.

If you have been charged with any crime, you must contact a Massachusetts defense attorney to ensure that all of your rights are protected. In any case where "possession" of the alleged item is an element of the crime and experienced trial attorney can evaluate whether filing a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence is a viable option. A successful litigation of a motion to suppress evidence means the suppression of the physical evidence and often times dismissal of the case against a defendant.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense, it important that you contact a criminal attorney familiar with the elements that the government must prove to secure a conviction. For example, to prove the crime of discharging of a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling or other building in use you can face a penalty ranging from by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. However, there are exceptions to the enforcement of this law that include the lawful defense of life and property; any law enforcement officer acting in the discharge of his duties; (c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof; (d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established; (e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined pursuant to statute; and (f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with the statute.

Continue reading "Lawrence Massachusetts Man Charged With Firearm And Related Offenses " »

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

Posted In: Firearm Offenses , Property Crimes , Search and Seizure , Weapon Offenses

Bookmark:

According to The Lowell Sun, a 34-year-old Lowell Massachusetts man, who was convicted for motor vehicle homicide and operating under the influence of alcohol causing serious bodily injury six years ago found his way back to prison after serving most of his 5 to 6 year committed sentence. The defendant was released from prison to a five year probationary term. However, this week a Superior Court Judge sitting in Lowell Massachusetts found that the defendant violated the terms of his probation after being arrested on charges of domestic assault and battery and malicious destruction of property in an incident involving his sister-in-law. According to reports, he was sentenced to serve the rest of his two-year jail sentence on his conviction for operating under the influence causing serious bodily injury.

If you have been served with a notice from the probation department that they are looking to surrender you because you violated the terms of your probation it is imperative that you contact an experienced Massachusetts trial attorney. The rules that apply during a probation surrender hearing are different from the rules that apply during a trial.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that “the due process clause does not place a per se prohibition on the use of hearsay evidence at probation revocation hearings.” Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 115 (1990). Rather, “[u]nsubstantiated and unreliable hearsay cannot, consistent with due process, be the entire basis of a probation revocation." The court also considers whether the evidence at the hearing is entirely hearsay and whether there is good cause for not having direct testimony.

In Massachusetts, a probationer has only a conditional liberty interest. The probationer is expected to comply with the conditions of probation. A breach of a condition of probation constitutes a violation, and if the probation officer receives information tending to show that the probationer has breached, the officer may “surrender” the probationer to the court. During a trial, the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the standard at a probation revocation hearing is lower. A probationer's probation may be revoked based on the probation department establishing a violation by a preponderance of evidence. In Massachusetts, the Courts position is that a probation revocation hearing is not part of criminal prosecution and, thus, a probationer need not be provided with the full panoply of constitutional protections available at criminal trial. However, the Courts have held that the revocation of probation does result in a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus, the Commonwealth must provide probationers with certain protections at surrender hearings. In Massachusetts, the hearsay on which the judge relies must be reliable.

If you have received notice of a "probation violation" it is important that you contact an experienced Massachusetts trial attorney to represent you at the surrender hearing. Effective representation can result in the court not finding you in violation or if you are found in violation convince the judge not to impose the sanction recommended by the probation officer. In certain situations, the submission of a memorandum opposing the finding of a violation is appropriate.

Continue reading "Lowell Massachusetts Man Found In Violation Of Probation Is Back Behind Bars" »

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

Posted In: Domestic Assault and Battery , OUI/DUI , Property Crimes

Bookmark:

According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, the driver of a minivan was robbed at gunpoint when he stopped at a stop sign in Lawrence Massachusetts. According to the police, after the driver came to a stop at the intersection, three armed men entered his van and stole a car stereo, global positioning system and earrings. After securing the items the thieves allowed the victim to drive away. The victim proceeded to the police station to report the crime.

Based on the facts in this case it appears that in addition to armed robbery culprits could also be charged with larceny of property valued at over $250.00 and assault when they are apprehended. A conviction for armed robbery provides for a punishment of up to life in state prison. If convicted for the felony of larceny of property valued at over $250.00 an individual may received up to two and one half years in the house of correction.

In Massachusetts, there are two theories of culpability for the crime of assault. The Commonwealth can prove the crime by either proving an attempted battery or by proving an imminently threatened battery. Following a trial on this type of charge, an experienced defense attorney should request that the jury slip reflect both theories and that the judge inform the deliberating jurors that in order to convict the defendant they must unanimously agree on the theory of culpability.

Relative to proving the crime, the Massachusetts courts have held that an act placing another in reasonable apprehension that force may be used is sufficient for the offense of criminal assault. However, generally speaking words threatening future harm are insufficient to constitute an assault. This "threatened-battery branch" of assault requires specific intent to put the victim in fear or apprehension of immediate physical harm. If the Commonwealth proceeds under the "threatened battery" prong, the government does not have to prove fear on the part of the victim.

If you have been charged with assault, assault and battery, a crime of domestic violence or any other crime of violence it is important that you contact an experienced Massachusetts defense attorney as soon as possible. Based on the facts of the case, it may be necessary to interview witnesses and begin mounting a defense while the facts are still fresh in people's minds.

Continue reading "Man Robbed When He Stopped At An Intersection In Lawrence Massachusetts" »

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

Posted In: Assault and Battery , Domestic Assault and Battery , Property Crimes , Self Defense

Bookmark:

There was not a dry eye in the audience when a Norfolk County Jury convicted Ryan Bois for the death of a six year old Weymouth girl. According to the Boston Globe, in a courtroom filled with emotion, Judge Janet Sanders told a packed courtroom that this was the "worst she has seen in her fourteen years a a judge" before she imposed four life term sentences. Bois was convicted for the rape, murder and kidnapping of his six year old cousin, Joanna Mullin. According to news reports, the trial lasted six days and the jury deliberated for 8 hours before convicting Bois of first-degree murder, two counts of rape, home invasion, kidnapping, larceny of a motor vehicle, larceny under $250, malicious destruction of property under $250, failure to stop for a police officer and negligent operation of a motor vehicle.

During the trial the defense maintained that Bois, 22 years old, was not guilty by reason of insanity. According to the Boston Globe, the Norfolk County prosecutor countered claiming that Bois's action were calculated when he raped his young cousin, wrapped her body in bed sheets and a quilt, stole keys to his grandmother's sport utility vehicle, and put the body in the back seat. The prosecutor presented evidence indicating that after committing this horrific crime, Bois called an acquaintance to get some drugs and during this conversation asked the acquaintance how to dispose of a body.

Understandably unable to listen to the details that led up to their daughter's death Mullins parents stayed away during the trial. However, many relatives and friends attended the trial at the Norfolk Superior Court located in Dedham, Massachusetts. After the jury returned the guilty verdict the prosecutor read the victim impact statement that Joanna's parents prepared.

Joanna's aunt, informed the convicted murderer that, ". . . we did nothing but try to help you get your life together because you were family. . . There will never be an explanation that will mend the hole in our hearts. And in our minds, this is truly the ultimate betrayal. Our beautiful, perfect daughter should still be here today. Because of you, she is not."

There are a number of theories that a prosecutor can present to a jury to secure a verdict for first degree murder. The most common theory is that a person commited a killing with deliberate premeditation with malice aforethought. To sustain a verdict under this theory the government must prove that the act of killing was the result of deliberate planning. It is not necessary that the prosecutor demonstrate that the killer had an elaborate plan, the deliberation can take a few hours, minutes or seconds. It is the deliberative process, no matter how long or short, that is forbidden.

Depending on the facts of a case, an experienced defense attorney can mount a successful defense of self-defense, defense of another or prove that the defendant was not the individual that committed the crime and it is a case of misidentification.

Continue reading "Norfolk County Jury Convicts Ryan Bois Of First Degree Murder And Related Charges" »

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

Posted In: Breaking and Entering , Murder , Property Crimes , Rape , Self Defense

Bookmark:

According to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, a fifty six year old North Andover resident Craig Bogosian was arraigned in the Lawrence District Court and charged with larceny by a single scheme of over one million dollars. It is alleged that Bogosian accepted millions from a friend and business associate, also from North Andover, under the guise of expanding his business which sold promotional items to companies that printed the company's name or logo on shirts, hats and pens. The North Andover Police Department believes that Bogosian's former friend is out $1.3 million and the police do not know what Bogosian did with the money. According to the Tribune, the funds wired to Bogosian from his former associates company were to be used to finance an expansion of Bogosian's company. The transferred funds were never used for the business and Bogosian landed himself in the Lawrence District Court answering to these charges.

A person convicted of the felony charge of larceny by scheme faces up to five years in state prison or two years in jail. In Massachusetts, larceny is defined as the unlawful stealing of the personal property of another with the intent to deprive the person of the property permanently. See, M.G.L.A. 266 § 30. Conviction of larceny by false pretenses requires proof that: (1) the defendant knowingly made a false statement of fact; (2) defendant intended that the person to whom the false statement was made would rely on its truth, (3) such person did rely upon the false statement, and (4) person parted with personal property based upon such reliance. Here the government is alleging that Bogosian improperly told his colleague that monies he provided would be used for business purposes and the colleague relied on this representation and provided the cash. However, it is alleged that the funds were not used for the proper purpose and the victim is out over one million dollars. What Bogosian did with the monies apparently remains a mystery. Bogosian is currently scheduled to return to court on April 10, 2009.

Continue reading "North Andover Man Accused Of Larceny Of Over One Million Dollars" »

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

Posted In: Property Crimes

Bookmark:

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that the police arrested four Lawrence teenagers and charged them with a number of property offenses after the stolen car they were driving was located using a LoJack tracking device. After finding the stolen car, the police determined that the local youths stole the car, a license plate and a battery from another car before leaving the tow lot located at 24 Medford Street, Lawrence, MA.

According to the Tribune, after the police located the car on Smith Street, they monitored it and ultimately recovered more stolen items including a computer tower, keyboard, monitor and an amplifier that was taken from the trunk of another car. The police arrested four teenagers who were all charged with a number of offenses based on their involvement. The charges included breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony, larceny of a motor vehicle, driving without a license, receiving stolen motor vehicle, malicious destruction of property, attaching improper plates, theft of the license plates and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

Continue reading "Lawrence Teenagers Charged With Numerous Offenses Including Larceny Of A Motor Vehicle, Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle, Receiving Stolen Property and Malicious Destruction Of Property" »

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

Posted In: Property Crimes

Bookmark:

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" »

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

Posted In: Property Crimes

Bookmark:

While the Reverend was on the pulpit delivering her sermon she became the victim of a recent string of larcenies. A savvy thief took advantage of an empty office. As the parishioners worshiped he broke in securing the keys to the reverend’s car that resulted in the theft of her pocketbook, car keys and ultimately her car. According to reports, at least eight churches in the Quincy area have been hit in the past month.

If the suspect is caught he could be charged with a number of offenses including breaking and entering, larceny of the pocketbook and larceny of a motor vehicle. In order to prevail on the breaking and entering charge the Government must prove that there was a breaking and entering. If you or someone you know is charged with this offense it is imperative that you contact a Boston criminal attorney to defend against this charge. Some particularly technical aspects of this offense include that passing through and opened window that is not intended for use as an entranceway could be considered a breaking. However, opening a partly opened window or a partly opened door that is intended to be used in that fashion is not considered an opening. Also, if any part of an individual's body enters the residence, that is sufficient for the Commonwealth to establish an entry under the statute. It it also imperative that the District Attorney's office prove that the perpetrator's intent at the time of entry was to commit a felony. The felony that is routinely charged or inferred is that a defendant intended to steal or "commit a larceny." Depending on the circumstances, the Commonwealth must prove that the incident occurred in the night time. If the Commonwealth fails to establish the time of the alleged breaking and entering than the defendant could still be convicted for breaking and entering in the day time. See, M.G.L. Chapter 266 Section 16. In order to properly defend against this type of charge it is necessary for an experienced attorney to begin working on the case as soon as possible.

In order for the Commonwealth to prove a larceny of property they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant stole the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprived the owner of the item. IOne approach to successfully defend against this charge is to demonstrate that the perpetrator did not possess the intent to "permanently deprived the owner" of the property at the time of the alleged taking. The charge of larceny can either be a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the value of the property stolen. If the value is over $250.00 then the defendant may face a state prison sentence. If the value of the property is under $250.00 then the defendant may only have the potential of receiving a jail sentence. If you are charged with this crime it is imperative that you contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to successfully defend against this charge.

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

Posted In: Property Crimes

Bookmark: