Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

Jessica Fargen of the Boston Herald reported that former New England Patriot and Walpole football coach and athletic director who has been charged with rape of a child has had his bail reduced from $100,000 to $7,500 by a Norfolk County Superior Court judge.  Last week Daniel Villa was charged with raping a 15 year old student.  He resigned as teacher, football coach and athletic director.  Prosecutors allege that Villa once coached the 15 year old student athlete and that romantic involvement commenced in October.  The relationship ended in December when the girl’s father found text messages between Villa and his daughter.  Apparently Villa texted the student over 500 times in a one month period.  If Villa is able to post bail he will be required to wear a GPS monitoring device.  Once released Villa cannot have contact with the alleged victim or her family, or contact with anyone younger than 16, except his own children, and no contact with Walpole schools. 

The day that Villa was arraigned in the Wrentham District Court on these charges his wife Joanne filed for divorce.  The couple have been married for 18 years and have 4 children.  Joanne Villa is seeking possession of the home, custody of the children and to resume her maiden name. 

Danny Villa played 12 seasons in the NFL.  His first 5 were spent with the New England Patriots, then he played for the Phoenix Cardinals.  He played the 4 seasons with the Kansas City Chiefs followed by another year in New England.  He finished his career in 1998 with the Carolina Panthers.  Villa played in 157 professional football games. 

Villa has probably been charged with rape of a child in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 23.  That law states that anyone who has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under 16 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years or, or any term in a jail or house of correction. These types of cases cannot be continued without a finding.  This crime is also known as statutory rape.  Consent is not a defense to these charges.  To convict someone of these charges the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse or unnatural intercourse with someone under the age of 16.  In Massachusetts the law states that once a person reaches the age of 16 he or she can consent to having sexual relations.  Unnatural sexual intercourse is defined in Massachusetts as including oral and anal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, and other intrusions of a part of a person’s body or other object into the genital or anal opening of another person’s body. 

Crimes such as this are very difficult to defend due to the fact that consent is not a defense.  The absence of a sexual act is a defense and one that is most frequently asserted when these cases go to trial.  However, corroborating evidence in the form of admissions through text messages or clothing with traces of semen or DNA make acquittals more unlikely.  Typically defendants in Villa’s situation plead guilty and hope that the judge who imposes sentence acts reasonably and/or that the district attorney’s office makes a reasonable recommendation for disposition. <!– This following tag is for the wrapper –>

Continue Reading

An Essex County Superior Court Judge sitting in Lawrence sentenced a 47 year old man to life in prison for raping and sexually abusing his daughter.  According to reports in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, the victim moved to this country from the Dominican Republic when she was 11 years old to live with her mother and the defendant, her stepfather.  Within a month sexual abuse started.  It lasted for 2 years.  The victim then returned to the Dominican Republic where she remained for a few years.  When she turned 16 she moved back to Essex County the abuse resumed and within a few months the defendant was arrested. 

The case was tried before a jury in the Essex County Superior Court in Lawrence.  The defendant was convicted of rape, indecent assault and battery, incest and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.   The judge who presided over the trial called the defendant’s conduct “appalling” and “close to torture”.  He then sentenced the defendant to life in prison on the rape charge.  A 9-10 year sentence was imposed on 3 counts of indecent assault and battery on a person under the age of 14.  A 9-10 year sentence was imposed for the conviction of one count of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.  These sentences were to run concurrently with the life sentence.  On the 3 incest counts the judge sentenced the defendant to 15-20 years in prison to run from and after the life sentence.  Concurrent with this sentence were 4-5 year prison sentences for indecent assault and battery on a person over 14. 

Assuming the convictions survive an almost inevitable appeal the defendant will be eligible for parole in 30 years. 

Of particular interest in this case is the incest charge.  The Massachusetts incest statute, G.L. c. 272 sec. 17 states that anyone “within degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited” who engage in sexual intercourse shall be punished by up to 20 years in state prison.  A Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case, Commonwealth v. Rahim, 441 Mass. 273 (2004) made clear that sexual intercourse between a step-father and step-daughter is not incest.  Here, there exists a strong possibility that the incest convictions will be overturned.  If that is the case, the defendant will be parole eligible in 19 years as opposed to 30 years.

Continue Reading

In July of this year a 43 year old Falmouth man was arrested and charged with enticing a child under the age of 16 for sex and the dissemination of matter harmful to a minor.  His lawyer is trying to get all charges dismissed claiming that the charges against the defendant cannot stand because there was no intent to rape the victim.  The prosecution in this case alleges that the defendant, a convicted sex offender, tried to persuade a girl to watch him masturbate over the internet.  

The Massachusetts child enticement statute is G.L. c. 265 sec. 26(C).  The law states that anyone who entices someone under the age of 16 into or out of a building, vehicle, home or outdoor space with the intent to commit an enumerated crime shall be punished for up to 5 years in prison.  Some of the enumerated crimes are assault and battery, indecent assault and battery, rape and rape of a child.  The word entice has been held to mean to lure, induce, persuade, tempt, incite, solicit, coax or invite. 

Continue Reading

The Malden

Observer reported that a Malden man was arrested and charged with

violating child pornography laws.  The defendant Daniel Morley has

The Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office released

a statement stating that a 38 year old Allston man is being held

without bail pending his arraignment tomorrow in the Suffolk Superior

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported that on October 10, 2008 a 45 year old Billerica man and a 25 year old Lawrence woman were charged with engaging in sex for a fee.  The case is pending in the Lawrence District Court.  According to the article, the man, drove his BMW through Lawrence passing a woman dressed in tight jeans, a halter top and wearing a lot of makeup.  The woman motioned with her head to the car.  A police officer witnessing the incident believed that the woman was working the streets.  The driver stopped and had a conversation with the woman.  She got in and the two proceeded to a residential neighborhood where the man parked the car.  The two engaged in an apparent conversation after which the woman’s head dropped out of sight.  The officer witnessing the incident called for backup and approached the car.  When the officer got to the car he witnessed the two engaging in a sex act.  Both parties were charged with engaging in sexual conduct for a fee.  The man was also charged with soliciting a prostitute.  The woman was additionally charged with being a common streetwalker.  Read article, Lawrence Eagle Tribune October 11, 2008.

Engaging in sexual conduct for a fee is a crime pursuant to G.L. c. 272 sec. 53A in Massachusetts.  The portion of the statute pertaining to this case is subsection (a) which states that anyone who “engages, agrees to engage, or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee, or whoever pays, agrees to pay, or offers to pay another person to engage in sexual conduct, or to agree to engage in sexual conduct with another natural person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 1 year or by a fine of not more than $500 or by both such imprisonment and fine, whether such sexual conduct occurs or not”.  The article does not make clear how the officer was able to determine that the act was being committed for a fee.  Obviously inferences can be drawn based on the clothing the woman was wearing, the circumstances surrounding the meeting and the place where the act was committed.  Any prior relationship between the parties could undercut the officer’s opinion.  Additionally, if the woman had a legitimate means of support one could argue the unreasonableness of the inference.  An experienced Lawrence Massachusetts sex crimes defense lawyer would likely investigate these scenarios in preparing his defense of this case. 

Soliciting a prostitute is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 8.  That statute makes criminal anyone who solicits or gets paid for soliciting for a prostitute.  Punishment for a violation of this law permits imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or both.  The question here is, if in fact the parties engaged in criminal activity who solicited whom.  The article suggests that the woman solicited the man.  If that is the case the man should not be convicted for this offense.  If you have been charged with a crime like this make sure you have a Massachusetts criminal attorney who has successfully defended sex crimes of this nature. 

The Salem News reported that a 31 year old man pleaded guilty in the Essex County Superior Court this past Wednesday for deriving support from prostitution, procuring a person for prostitution and soliciting for prostitution.  The defendant, Trevor Jones had previously worked as a telemarketer, a landscaper and in retail before becoming a pimp.  According to reports, Jones was making thousands of dollars per week in his new trade.  The article continued that Jones forced at least two drug-addicted and desperate women into prostitution.  He demanded that the women bring him at least $1,000 per night.  The investigation leading to this prosecution started when one of Jones victims reported these activities to police.  Jones and another were then tracked to motels and hotels all over the North Shore, including places in Peabody, Danvers, Middleton, Salem and Saugus.  Police also learned that Jones met the women at parties and invited them to stay with him, while also providing them drugs,  Afterwards Jones would require the women to work the streets in downtown Boston while also arranging meetings with male customers at motels and hotels.  All of the money made by the women would be surrendered to Jones.  Jones was sentenced to 2-5 years in state prison.  He will also be on probation for 5 years after he is released.  Jones was already on probation for a similar case in Andover.  He will likely face a probation violation.   Read entire article, Salem Daily News. 

The primary statute under which Jones was sentenced is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 7.  That statute makes it a crime for anyone to derive any means of support or maintenance from the earnings or proceeds of his prostitution.  There is a maximum state prison sentence of 5 years and a minimum mandatory sentence of 2 years.  Soliciting a person for prostitution is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 8.  The statute reads that anyone who “shall solicit or receive compensation for soliciting for a prostitute shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or both.”  Procuring a person for prostitution is a violation of G.L. c. 272 Sec. 12.  That statute states that anyone who procures a person to practice prostitution shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not less than three months nor more than two years.

As you can see from this case, there are several statutes that pertaining directly to pimping in Massachusetts.  Hiring an experienced Massachusetts sex crimes defense attorney is a decision that might impact how your case is ultimately resolved.  For some sex crimes convictions you are facing a mandatory registration with the Massachusetts Sex Offenders Registry Board, also known as SORB.  If you have a case involving a sex crime we encourage you to call our office now. 

The Newburyport News reported that Joel Napolitano, 29 of Groveland has been charged with 3 counts of distributing obscene material, 2 counts of distributing obscene material to a minor and 5 counts of open and gross lewdness.  According to the report, since February Napolitano would use his cell phone to show employees of the Fitness Factory pictures of his genitals.  He also showed them a video in which he was engaged in a lewd sex act.  It is further alleged that the defendant had improper communications of a sexual nature with the 16 year old daughter of one of the employees.  Upon his arrest Napolitano told the police that he never showed the employees the pictures.  Rather, they located them on his cell phone without his permission.  Bail was set at $500 and the defendant was ordered to stay away from the Fitness Factory.  Read entire article in the Newburyport News. 

Open and gross lewdness is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 16.  The law states that “[a] man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars.”  In order to convict someone for open and gross lewdness in Massachusetts the “prosecution must show that (1) the defendant exposed his or her genitals, buttocks, or breasts to one or more persons; (2) the defendant did so intentionally; (3) the defendant did so “openly,” that is, either the defendant intended public exposure or recklessly disregarded a substantial risk of public exposure to others who might be offended by such conduct; (4) the defendant’s act was done in such a way as to produce alarm or shock; and (5) one or more persons were in fact alarmed or shocked by the defendant’s exposure.”  Commonwealth v. Kessler, 442 Mass. 770 (2004).  In this case it is unclear whether the 4th and 5th prongs of this test were met.  If in fact Napolitano did show the pictures to employees for an eight month period and no complaints were made until just recently there may be a defense to this crime.  You have to wonder why it took so long to make these complaints if the other employees were truly alarmed or shocked. 

Disseminating materials harmful to minors is a criminal act in Massachusetts under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 28.  It carries a potential sentence of 5 years in state prison and a rather stiff fine.  These crimes cannot be continued without a finding. Distributing obscene materials is a criminal act pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 29.   This too is punishable for up to 5 years in state prison.  In order to convict under either statute, the materials must fit the definition set forth in G.L. c. 278, § 31. Section 31 defines “matter” for purposes of the obscenity statutes as “any printed material, visual representation, live performance or sound recording including but not limited to, books, magazines, motion picture films, pamphlets, phonographic records, pictures, photographs, figures, statues, plays, dances.” See Commonwealth v. O’Keefe, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 566, 567 (2000).

An Andover man who is a former dean of the Business School at Merrimack College was arrested and charged with possession and distribution of child pornography.  The case is pending in the Lawrence District Court.  The defendant has been identified as Edward Popper, 63.  According to an article in the Andover Townsman an undercover Pennsylvania police officer had online meetings with Popper and learned that Popper possessed a large amount of child pornographic photographs.  The office notified the Essex County District Attorney’s office which subsequently learned that Popper was the person communicating with the undercover.  Popper was arrested, arraigned and released on $10,000 bail.  During the arrest police seized Popper’s computers.  As a condition of his bail he is ordered to keep off of the internet and any technological device through which he can have access to children.  A pre-trial conference has been scheduled for September 16, 2008. 

In Massachusetts it is illegal to purchase or possess child porn.  The statute, G.L. c. 272 sec. 29C prohibits 1) the possession or purchase of any picture, film, negative, book or compute image of a person he knows to be under the age of 18 or “reasonable should know” is under the age of 18; 2) that shows that individual having sex with a person or animal, masturbating, being lewdly touched, being bound, abused or portrayed in any lewd pose.  A conviction for this offense carries a five year state prison sentence.  The case cannot be continued without a finding. 

Distribution of child pornography in Massachusetts is made criminal by G.L. c. 272 sec. 29B. That statute prohibits the dissemination of child porn or the possession with the intent to disseminate child pornography. A conviction under this statute requires the defendant to serve 10 years minimum in state prison.  Consent is not a defense under this statute. 

A New Hampshire man charged with aggravated rape faces potential additional charges now that other women are coming forward with similar stories.  The Newburyport Daily News reported that Thomas Currier meets women on an internet dating site, invites them over for dinner and rapes them.  According to the police, Currier gives the women a drink that contains some type of drug that incapacitates them.  The story initially broke on Thursday.  See Full Article, Newburyport Daily News when it was reported that on August 3, 2008 a woman having dinner at Currier’s home experienced an inability to control her body after having a few sips of a drink.  Currier then took her into his bedroom where he proceeded to have sex with her against her will.  The victim was physically unable to stop the attack.  After Currier was finished he threw the woman out of his apartment.  The next day the victim told her family and a rape kit was conducted at the Lawrence General Hospital.  The victim then obtained a restraining order against Currier. 

A state police investigation is ongoing after other women have told of similar stories.  Currier has been violent towards women in the past.  One woman claimed that when she refused to drink the drugged beverage Currier threatened to shoot her.  Investigators believe that other victims might be from Massachusetts and Maine.  The defendant is currently held without bail. 

Rape is punishable by a prison term of up to life in Massachusetts.  It is possible to receive a much light sentence defending on the nature of the allegations.  However, drugging a person for the purpose of committing rape in Massachusetts is also a crime in Massachusetts and it is punishable by a minimum mandatory 10 year state prison sentence.  Defending cases involving drugging and raping victims requires an understanding of the effects of certain drugs on individuals.  Most lawyers need to be educated on how these substances effect a person.  The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman uses renowned toxicologists like Dr. David Benjamin to assist in the preparation of cases involving drugs and sometimes alcohol.  Dr. Benjamin has testified on several of our cases, all with great results.  Dr. Benjamin is a compelling knowledgeable witness who captivates juries and judges.  He regularly provides our office with advice and updated information on toxicological issues.  He is able to distinguish what drugs do in fact incapacitate and what quantities are necessary to achieve the illicit objective.  On any case involving impairment we strongly recommend using a toxicologist to inform the jury of the exact effects of the substances on the human mind and body.