Articles Posted in Miscellaneous Crimes

| by

Trevor Brooks and another Hamilton, Massachusetts man along with Camilla Lambert of Manchester will likely be charged in the Ipswich District Court, (now merged with the Newburyport District Court) with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor and attempting to start a fire. According to reports a security guard at Gordon College found the three in the music center on the campus. None of the three are enrolled in the school and when asked what they were doing on the property they made some untrue statements. Apparently and for some inexplicably reason the group lit and eraser on fire. The three denied breaking into the property instead claiming that they gained entry through an unlocked door. One of the three defendants later went to the Wenham Police Station to make a statement about his involvement in the matter.

Two From Hamilton Massachusetts And Another From Manchester Charged With Breaking And Entering, Related Crimes

While there is obviously much missing from this article there stands a very good chance that this case will remain in the district court. The crime of Breaking and Entering With the Intent to Commit a Misdemeanor is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 16A. A conviction for that offense carries a maximum six month house of correction sentence. Attempting to start a fire is prohibited by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 5A. This crime is a felony and is punishable by up to state prison. If the defendants do not have criminal records there is a chance that this case will be resolved by a continuance without a finding. That type of disposition in Massachusetts provides a break for the defendant. Here is how that works. The judge will agree to continue the case for a specified period of time. During that time period if the defendant stays out of criminal legal trouble the case will ultimately be dismissed. I would imagine that something along these lines with certain conditions such as community service or restitution is a way in which this case might be finalized.

Continue Reading

| by

Shortly after 11:10 p.m. yesterday a Massachusetts State Trooper observed a car pass him on Route 495 at a speed estimated around one mile per hour. A chase followed. The officer observed the vehicle exit the highway at Route 110 in Haverhill, Massachusetts. According to the officer the driver’s speeds ranged from fifty five miles per hour to eighty five miles per hour once off of the highway. Haverhill Police officers observed the car for short periods of time but were unable to follow it. The car was finally found abandoned on Central Street in Haverhill. Two men walking near the scene were arrested. One of the men, Aldis Sureo was charged with receiving stolen property. The other man, Aneudis Mendez was charged with disorderly conduct. Charged are pending in the Haverhill District Court.

Read Article:

Car Chase Leads To Criminal Charges For Two Massachusetts Men

One thing that comes to mind when reading this article is why did the police stop Sureo and Mendez. Massachusetts law states that in order to lawfully conduct an investigatory stop there can be no more than a brief non-intrusive detention of the person and it must be supported by specific and articulable facts sufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion. If officers ask questions with a show of authority an illegal seizure may have occurred. If the officers actions were sufficiently coercive or intimidating a seizure might have occurred. The positioning of officers during the encounter factors into its constitutionality as well. In cases such as this one the defendant’s chance of success often rests on the legality of the stop. A motion to suppress can at times result in a dismissal of the case.

Continue Reading

| by

Around 10:30 p.m. this past Tuesday Braintree, Massachusetts police officers responded to an apartment complex after a 911 call about a fight. They were directed to Jeffrey Lynch who it turns out had two outstanding warrants for motor vehicle crimes. Further investigation suggested that Lynch and another man were having an argument. The other man’s girlfriend overheard Lynch telling someone on the telephone to bring a gun. The dispute between Lynch the man resumed during which Lynch asked one of his friends to hand him the gun. A struggle for the gun supposedly followed. When the participants heard the police sirens everyone scattered. The gun was never found. Lynch has been charged with carrying a firearm, assault with a dangerous weapon and impeding an investigation in the Quincy District Court.

Read Article:

Firearms Charges Issue Against Massachusetts Man Involved In A Fight

Carrying a firearm in Massachusetts is a felony. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269 Section 10(a) states that anyone who carries a firearm without a license must serve a minimum mandatory eighteen months in the house of correction and up to five years in state prison. In Massachusetts a firearm is defined as a weapon that is capable of firing a shot or bullet and has a barrel of less than sixteen inches. This law has great significance for Lynch. Since the police never found the weapon there is no way of telling whether it could fire a bullet or any to determine its actual size. Without this information there is not way the district attorney can prove the firearm charge against Lynch. That leaves the assault dangerous weapon charge and the impeding the investigation charge for Lynch to defend. It will be much easier for his lawyers to negotiation a resolution of those matters or possibly try them now that the gun charge no longer seem viable.

Continue Reading

| by

Melvin Cumba was at a Shaw’s Supermarket last Thursday accompanied by Shannon Widener. At approximately 5:30 that evening a Shaw’s employee saw Cumba shooting heroin in the woman’s bathroom. Apparently Cumba had been given warnings by authorities to leave the store. He refused, argued with the police and was charged with possession of heroin, second offense, disorderly person and trespassing. Bail was set at one thousand dollars cash. Widener was arrested for an outstanding warrant out of Brockton.

Drug Charges For Man Using Heroin In Food Store

Possession of heroin in Massachusetts is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 34, The law states that anyone who is found in possession of heroin, a Class A substance, and is convicted of that crime can be punished by up to two years in the house of correction. For a second offense the punishment is up to five years in state prison. The latter version of the crime is a felony. This case will likely be prosecuted in the Stoughton District Court. Cumba’s biggest challenge will be convincing a judge to give him a sentence that does not require him to serve jail time.

Continue Reading

| by

At about 10:30 p.m. police officers in Massachusetts saw what they believed was someone drinking beer in a car in Brockton. The car was pulled over and the driver then took off, speeding all the way to Quincy. The suspect’s car hit a tree near a garage and the driver and one of three passengers were arrested. The driver, Joseph Cooper was charged with operating to endanger, assault with a dangerous weapon and attempted murder. It is alleged that he tried to ram a police cruiser head on. The driver was also operating with a suspended license. One of the passengers was charged with resisting arrest. The other two escaped on foot.

Boston Massachusetts Men Charged With Crimes After Chase

Here is an interesting question. What if anything are the two men who escaped criminally responsibly for? Unless one or both of them were drinking the beer the answer is probably nothing. There is no legal way to charge them with any criminal activity given the facts of this article. While the prosecution typically charges people who accompany the principles as joint venturers there is nothing here suggestive of criminal behavior on their parts. So why did they run? Well, perhaps they had outstanding warrants. Maybe they did not want to get charged with “resisting arrest” as did the passenger. Here is another point. Why was the passenger being arrested? It is difficult to hold any passenger accountable for the conduct of a driver absent some evidence that he or she shared the same criminal intent, desired the same result and stood ready, willing and able to assist in the crime.

Continue Reading

| by

Coop’s Bar and Grill in Quincy, Massachusetts was the wrong place for a twenty five year old Weymouth woman to spend her Saturday night. Around 11:45 p.m. as the victim was leaving the bar a group of teenagers began yelling obscenities at her. The woman confronted group. She was then assaulted, beaten and her pocketbook was taken from her. She ended up in Massachusetts General Hospital with “serious facial injuries”. The woman was eventually able to identify two of three assailants, Erin Buckley and Leah Coyne, both of Weymouth. Another suspect was observed with Coyne going through a pocketbook behind a home. Both Buckley and Coyne were charged with robbery and aggravated assault and battery. The third person, Shane Ferguson was charged with being a accessory after the fact.

Read Article: Robbery Charges For Girls Who Attacked Woman In Quincy

If these charges are prosecuted as currently issued the case will be indicted to the Norfolk County Superior Court. The most serious charge Buckley and Coyne face is the robbery charge. In Massachusetts robbery is a life felony whether committed by someone armed or unarmed. The aggravated assault and battery is also a felony and carries up to five years in state prison. If the injuries are not as severe as reported and Buckley and Coyne do not have criminal records I would not be surprised to see these cases remain in the Quincy District Court where the maximum the defendants face is two and one half years in the house of correction.

Continue Reading

| by

In a unanimous decision five justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed an Appeals Court decision pertaining to probation violaton/revocation matters. See Commonwealth v. Ruiz, Slip Opinion March 31, 2009. In Ruiz the Court found the following facts:

Stemming from two incidents of domestic violence Ruiz pleaded guilty to seven separate crimes in the Superior Court. One count required that Ruiz serve five to five and one half years in state prison. On the remaining cases Ruiz was sentenced to probation to commence from and after (consecutive) the period of incarceration. The probationary period was for three years with one of the conditions being that Ruiz not contact the victim either directly or indirectly. The sentence imposed was at the request of both the district attorney and the defense. During the period of incarceration Ruiz wrote letters to the victim. A probation surrender hearing was scheduled. The judge found that Ruiz had violated the terms of his probation by contacting the victim through the letters. He imposed and additional sentence of one year to one year. Ruiz appealed from the ruling. The Appeals Court affirmed and the Supreme Judicial Court accepted review of the case and reversed.

Typically probation commences once the defendant is released from incarceration. A defendant can be sentenced to probation concurrent with his committed sentence. However a sentence imposing both incarceration and probation concurrent with the incarceration is not common. Such a sentence might be imposed where there is a concern that the defendant will cause trouble during the period of incarceration. This case makes clear however that any condition of probation imposed concurrently with a committed sentence must be clear on the record and the defendant must have notice of that condition.

Continue Reading

| by

On January 18, 2009, while at a Metallica concert Brewster, Massachusetts police officer Joseph Houston was throw out of the Boston Garden after urinating on another concertgoer. Houston then tried to get back into the concert by flashing his police badge. According to earlier reports Houston was told that if he did not leave the concert he would be charged with trespassing. Houston again tried to use his badge to regain entry to the Garden. Failing to heed the second warning Houston tried to again to go back into the concert. He was arrested. Later, the parents of the person on whom he urinated reported that incident to the Boston police and charges ultimately issued. Now, Houston in charged with assault and battery and open and gross lewdness.

Read Articles: Cape Cod Police Officer Suspended After Concert Incident

Brewster Police Officer Charged With Felony Stemming From Actions At Concert

The most serious charge Houston faces is the open and gross lewdness. In Massachusetts this is a felony in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 16. There is a maximum three year state prison sentence that can be imposed if the case is prosecuted in the Superior Court. This case will most likely be handled in the Boston Municipal Court where Houston can be sentenced to no more than two years in the house of correction.

To convict someone of this crime the district attorney must prove five elements beyond a reasonable doubt. 1) that the defendant exposed his genitals to one or more persons, 2) that this was intentional, 3) that he intended public exposure, 4) that the act was done in a way to produce shock and 5) that someone was in fact shocked by the act.

Continue Reading

| by

The New York Daily News reports that former Boston College Basketball player Sean Williams has been arrested and charged with violating a restraining order and trespassing.  Williams has had problems in this area in the past.  He was thrown off of the Boston College basketball team in his junior year for smoking marijuana and has been banned from entering the Boston College campus.  Prior to his expulsion Williams had been suspended for marijuana use. 

Read Article:  http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/nets/2009/02/16/2009-02-16_nets_sean_williams_arrested_at_bc_over_r.html

The article’s reference to a restraining order violation is somewhat sketchy.  Restraining orders in Massachusetts are governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 209A.  Restraining orders protect family or household members in Massachusetts.  Those individuals are defined as people who 1) are or were married to one another, 2) reside or had resided in the same household, 3) are or were related by blood, 4) have a child together or 5) are in or have been in a substantive dating relationship.  There is no indication that anyone fitting that definition was involved in this incident.

Trespassing in Massachusetts is prohibited by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 120.  The law states that anyone who without authority enters or remains in or on property another, or does so in violation of a restraining order is guilty of trespassing.  A conviction of this offense carries a potential 30 day jail sentence. 

This case will likely be prosecuted in the Brighton District Court. 

Continue Reading

| by

Derek Blumenthal and Christopher Chamberlain both of Brockton are being held at the Bristol County Jail.  They are charged with extortion by threat of injury and witness intimidation.  It is alleged that they made threats to a Brockton dentist’s family and tried to extort money from them.  According to reports in the Brockton Enterprise, the defendants were driving by the victim’s Easton home every ten minutes demanding four hundred dollars for money purportedly owed for drugs.  The men made threatening calls from their cell phone, telling the dentist’s wife that if she did not pay the money that her son owed they would go “into the house and beat her beyond recognition”.  More calls had been made earlier in the day and messages were left with the dentist’s answering service in Raynham and Dorchester.  Over 20 calls were made altogether.  

Read Article:   http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/x1177286299/Two-Brockton-men-charged-with-extortion

So what are these guys looking at? 

1.  Extortion:  The Massachusetts statute making this a crime in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 25.  The law prohibits anyone from communicating a threat to someone else with the intent to extort money from that person.  A conviction can carry a prison sentence of up to 15 years if the case in prosecuted in the superior court.  If the reports are correct this case was properly charged.

2.  Witness Intimidation:  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 268 Section 13B sets out the criteria for witness intimidation.  If you threaten someone who is a potential witness in a criminal case you can be found guilty of this charge and sentenced for up to ten years in prison.  The article does not make clear how these two men are in violation of this statute.

I would bet that these cases remain in the district court given the absence of any physical harm to the victims.  If that is the case both defendants face no more than 2 1/2 years in the Bristol County House of Correction.

Continue Reading