Articles Posted in Motor Vehicle Crimes

| by

Eighteen year old Joshua Rodriguez from Marblehead was arraigned in the Lynn District Court on charges that he raped three girls under the age of sixteen all within a six week period.  According to reports, a 14 year old and a 15 year old complained that they were raped in December while another girl, also 14 told authorities that she was raped on February 4, 2009.  At the arraignment the district attorney told the judge that on December 3, 2008 Rodriguez forced one of the victims into a bathroom and forcibly raped her.  Another victim was raped in a car and threatened by the defendant afterwards.  The third victim reportedly smoked marijuana with Rodriguez, passed out and awakened to the defendant on top of her fondling her genitals.  Rodriguez is no stranger to the legal system.  He has a prior breaking and entering charge, motor vehicle offenses and drug charges.  Bail was set in the amount of $25,000.00. 

Read Article:  Rape Charges Pending Against Marblehead Teenager In Lynn

Typically when you hear about rape cases involving 18 year old males and 14 or 15 year old girls the charge will be rape of a child without force, commonly referred to as statutory rape.  Not so in this case.  These are forcible rape charges.  While the potential sentence for both is the same, people convicted of forcible rape typically receive stiff state prison sentences.  Rape of a child in Massachusetts is a violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 22A or Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 23.  The former is rape with force, the latter is statutory rape. 

From reading the article it seems like Rodriguez has a tough road ahead of him.  Prosecutors in Massachusetts try to join cases like this for one trial to show motive or pattern.  If judges permit the joinder defending these cases is extremely difficult.  It is one thing to attack one victim through cross-examination or show inconsistencies in her story.  It is another thing to try to do this to three people, all of whom claim to have been raped in separate incidents, on different dates and at separate locations.  Cases like this usually get resolved through plea bargaining. 

Continue Reading

| by

Apparently Framingham and Massachusetts State Police had been on to Anthony Batista and Hector Perez for several months.  Armed with information that the two Boston, Massachusetts men were selling crack cocaine in Framingham an investigation that included undercover drug buys began.  Batista became known to the officers on last Friday detectives in Framingham followed him through some downtown roads.  They saw him exit his car and get into a car with Hector Perez.  Batista later got back into his own car and was pulled over by the police.  He immediately surrendered a bag of cocaine and admitted to getting it from Perez.  Perez was apprehended.  Police found 18 individually packaged bags of cocaine in his possession.  Both were charged with distribution of cocaine, possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, conspiracy and a school zone violation.  Batista was also charged with driving without a license. 

It looks like Perez might have some bigger problems as well.  He has outstanding warrants.  One is out of the Worcester Superior Court for trafficking cocaine and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine.  The other warrant is out of the Framingham District Court for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, possession of cocaine and a school zone violation. 

Read Article:  Boston Men Facing Cocaine Charges in Framingham Court

The article is unclear as to why Batista was charged with distribution, possession with intent and conspiracy.  Clearly there is a case for possession of cocaine.  He had the substance in his possession when stopped by the police.  If Batista was the seller in one or more of the undercover buys then the distribution charge makes sense.  As to the conspiracy and possession with intent, the police must show that Batista and Perez were working together to sell the cocaine that Perez was caught with either as joint venturers or co-conspirators. 

Jail time is a distinct possibility for both men in this case.  The school zone charge alone carries a minimum mandatory 2 year jail sentence.  Perez’s trafficking cases carry anywhere from a 3 year mandatory sentence to a 15 year mandatory sentence depending on the amount he was charged with trafficking.

Continue Reading

| by

Massachusetts police allege that a thirty seven year old man was under the influence when he lost control of the snowmobile he was driving causing it to crash into rocks, killing his passenger.  Chris Corriveau is now charged with operating under the influence of alcohol (OUI) and motor vehicle homicide.  The victim, a thirty six year old woman died at the scene. 

Read Article:  Massachusetts Authorities Charge Man With Drunk Driving and Motor Vehicle Homicide in Connection With Snowmobile Fatality

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 1 defines motor vehicles in Massachusetts.   The law states that any vehicle made for propulsion by power is a motor vehicle.  Motorized bicycles are not motor vehicles however in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90 Section 1B anyone operating a motorized bicycle is subject to the laws of the road and can be prosecuted for DUI.  In Massachusetts motorcycles are motor vehicles as are golf carts, mobile homes, tractors and mobile construction cranes.  While arguably a snowmobile may be considered a motor vehicle, in this case there is an issue as to whether the vehicle was operated on a public way.  Public way is an element that the district attorney must prove beyond a reasonable doubt before someone can be convicted of OUI or motor vehicle homicide. 

The issue of impairment can also be attacked in any alcohol related driving case.  Field sobriety tests are subjective and vulnerable to attack on cross-examination.  People would be amazed at how many times police officers demonstrating these tests in court stumble or inadequately perform the very tests that they administered in the field to the defendant.  Breathalyzer tests are subject to the same scrutiny as are any other machines.  Think about how many times you drove past one of those stationary police radar signs that tell you how fast you are driving.  Rarely do they reflect the same speed registered on your speedometer.  The speeds often vary by 5 or 6 miles per hour.  What does this tell you?  Either the police radar is inaccurate or your speedometer is inaccurate.  Why does this happen?  Because these are machines and they are fallible. 

Continue Reading

| by

Juan Fernandez of Lynn, Massachusetts was arraigned in the Attleboro District Court after being charged with drunk driving (DUI), leaving the scene of an accident, possession with intent to distribute controlled substances and operating to endanger.  All of this stems from a collision last Saturday morning involving Fernandez and a Massachusetts Police Officer.  Apparently, at 4:50 in the morning Fernandez was driving the wrong way on Interstate 95 near Route 123.  His car struck a police cruiser who was attempting to stop him from operating in the wrong direction.  It was reported that Fernandez was so drunk that when questioned by police he did not know where he was. 

Read Article:  http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2009/02/10/news/4390515.txt

Massachusetts district attorneys look at drunk driving in two contexts.  One is based on the police officer’s observations of the defendant at the time he or she is stopped.  The officer considers the manner of operation of the vehicle, the suspect’s physical appearance, the odor of alcohol, physical behavior and the performance of field sobriety tests.  These subjective criteria help the police form opinions as to sobriety or impairment.  The second context in which prosecutors look at drunk driving cases involves an “illegal per se” operation of a motor vehicle.  Massachusetts and all other states have adopted a rule that anyone operating with a blood alcohol of .08 percent or higher is guilty of drunk driving.  There is an overlap between an officer’s observations and the illegal per se view of this crime.

Many drunk driving cases are defensible.  Police officers’ subjective opinions are often countered by reasonable explanations for certain behavior.  For instance, officers typically use the expression “unsteady on his feet” to support their opinion that someone was intoxicated.  Many times however the defendant will have a physical defect or problem that causes a certain gait.  Another common phrase used by the police at trial is “slurred speech”.  This can be explained by certain impediments or accents particular to the suspect.  Unless the officer knows the person he has no way of knowing if the speech pattern is the effect of alcohol or the individual’s particular speech pattern. 

Continue Reading

| by

At 2:00 this morning in Somerville, 32 year old Marcel Laurol of Malden man was shot by a 25 year old man from Brockton.  Laurol then hijacked a taxicab and drove it into his attacker.  Both of these guys are going to need good defense lawyers.

According to the BostonChannel Laurol was shot in the leg near Elm Street and Herbert Street.  He then jumped into a taxicab, assaulted the driver, hijacked his passengers and drove down Chester Street.  Laurol then drove into the Brockton man (the shooter) injuring his arms and head.  The cab then struck a nearby building. 

Laurol was charged with kidnapping, carjacking, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, reckless operation of a motor vehicle and operating with a revoked driver’s license.  Apparently the police were unable to locate and identify the taxicab’s passengers. 

Read Full Article:  http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18668109/detail.html

Carjacking in Massachusetts is a crime under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 21A.  That law states that anyone whoever “with intent to steal a motor vehicle, assaults, confines, maims or puts any person in fear for the purpose of stealing a motor vehicle shall” is guilty of carjacking.  You do not have to actually steal the car to be found guilty so long as you intended to do so.  There is a maximum 15 year prison sentence for anyone convicted of this offense.  If the crime is committed by someone who is armed with a dangerous weapon the maximum sentence increases to 20 years.  If the offense is committed with a firearm there is a 5 year minimum sentence. 

Continue Reading

| by

A fifteen year old girl was crossing Waverly Street shortly after 9:30 p.m. Wednesday August 20th when she was strike by a white Jeep Cherokee.  The vehicle stopped briefly but the operator never got out of the car.  According to Framingham Police the driver who was identified as Jose Cartagena was arrested about forty minutes later after a witness provided the police with the car’s plate number and a description of the driver.  The victim was taken to a locan hospital.  The status of her condition was not released.  When questioned by police Cartagena denied driving the car tried to blame his brother. The brother told officers that he never permitted Cartagena to drive the car.

Cartagena was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, use without authority and operating without a driver’s license.  He was arraigned in the Framingham District Court where he entered a plea of not guilty.  He was released on personal recognizance.

To find Cartagena guilty of using the car without authority the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements:  1) that Cartagena used the vehicle; 2) that he did so on a public way; 3) that he lacked permission to use the vehicle; and 4) that he knew the use of the car was unauthorized.  The first two elements will be easily met by the prosecution.  That third element might present them with some problems.  It is not uncommon for siblings not to testify favorably for one another.  While Cartagena’s brother initially told the police that he did not permit the defendant to use the car his story might change; he might deny that he provided police with that information or he might tell the prosecution that while he did not give specific permission for Cartagena to use the car that night he regularly allowed him to use it.  This would give Cartagena a legitimate defense to this charge in that he had a valid belief that his use of the car was permitted.

Continue Reading