Articles Posted in Theft Crimes

| by
Two Massachusetts men were charged with larceny over $250, receiving stolen property, credit card theft and credit fraud after getting arrested in a stolen car.  The men, Barry Sylvester of Pembroke and Daniel Meehan of Dorchester stand accused of stealing a Department of Recreation and Conservation truck from a parking lot in Dorchester on New Year’s Eve.  It is also alleged that the two used a stolen credit card to purchase power tools.  A state trooper who observed the vehicle heading southbound or Route 3 made a call.  The defendants were spotted at an Exxon Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts at about 3:00 p.m. last Friday.  Plymouth Police confronted the men and made arrests.  Read full story, Brockton Enterprise January 5, 2008. 
 
A likley breakdown of the charges is as follows:
 
1.  Credit Card Fraud.  The Massachusetts credit card fraud statute is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 37C.  This law makes it a crime to fraudulently use a credit card.  Massachusetts case law suggests that there must be testimony from the true cardholder that the defendant was using it without his consent.  Evidence that defendant identified himself as the cardholder to sales associate was insufficient to support inference that defendant obtained the credit card without cardholder’s consent.  There is a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison if convicted of this crime in the Superior Court or up to 2 1/2 years in the house of correction if the case is kept in the District Court.
 
2.  Receiving Stolen Property.  This crime is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 60.  This statute makes it a crime to buy, receive or aid in the concealment of stolen property.  To convict someone of this crime the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property in question was stolen, that the defendant knew that the property was stolen and that the defendant knowingly kept the property in his possession.  In all likelihood this charge pertains to the stolen tools since receiving a stolen motor vehicle is a separate crime as is larceny of a motor vehicle. 
 
3.  Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle.  This is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 28.  This law states that anyone who is in possession of a motor vehicle knowing the same to be stolen is guilty of a crime.  A conviction under this statute is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. 

Continue Reading

| by
On December 11, Framingham Police responded to a call dispatch regarding a dispute.  There they contacted the defendant who began flailing his arms and yelling at the police.  The man was arrested for disorderly conduct.  Framingham Police also learned that the man was wanted on a warrant.  During a pat frisk police located 2 syringes in the defendant’s pocket.  During the booking process police found broken automobile glass in the defendant’s clothing and credit cards in someone else’s name.  It was subsequently learned that this man had broken into 2 cars in another part of Framingham.  The prosecution charged this individual with larceny over $250 and malicious destruction to property valued in excess of $250.  See full article, Metrowest Daily News, December 13, 2008.
 
Several criminal issues are raised by this arrest.  First, possession of a syringe is regulated by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94 Section 27.  The law with respect to this section is somewhat ambiguous since the statute was amended in 2006. There is currently no case law in Massachusetts interpreting this statute.  This most likely explains why the defendant in this case was not charged with a crime of this nature.
 
Disorderly conduct is a crime pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 53.  It is punishable by up to 6 months in jail.  This statute can only apply to conduct that does not involve a lawful exercise of a First Amendment right.  For a person to be disorderly there must be disturbing conduct through acts other than speech.  It is questionable as to whether the defendant’s conduct in this instance of flailing of his arms and yelling at police constitutes a violation of this statute. 
 
Larceny over $250 is proscribed by G.L. c. 266 Sec. 30.  This crime carries a possible 5 years prison sentence if the person is indicted and convicted in the Superior Court.  If the case is kept in the District Court there is a maximum 2 year sentence after conviction.  The article is unclear as to why the defendant was charged with larceny over $250.  The credit cards themselves do not have that value. 
 
Malicious destruction of property over $250 violates G.L. c. 266 Sec. 127.  Here, the property destroyed was the car which likely is worth in excess of $250.  To prove someone guilty of this crime the prosecution must show that the defendant intended the conduct and the harmful consequences of that conduct.  Malicious destruction of property is also a specific intent crime that requires, as an element of the offense, a showing of a cruel, hostile, or vengeful intent in addition to the intentional doing of the unlawful act.

Continue Reading

| by

A Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office press release stated that James Atkins, a Chelsea Police sergeant has been indicted and charged with 5 counts of larceny.  In 2007 parents and Chelsea High School officials contacted the police to report their concerns about Atkins handling of monies raised for the Chelsea football team during fundraising events.  At that time Atkins was also the head football coach, booster president and someone with access to the fundraising bank account.  The account was to be used to purchase equipment, uniforms, team events and a pre-season camp.  Suspicions about Atkins management of the account were initially voiced in the fall of 2006.  Consequently, Atkins surrendered control of the account to a parent however he retained an ATM card for himself.  The card was used for several unauthorized purchases including personal travel and entertainment.  Atkins’ tenure as coach terminated in 2007.  The total amount stolen by Atkins is estimated around $10,000.  He has been on administrative leave since August 2007.  An arraignment hearing has been set for October 22, 2008. 

Addressing the charges, Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley said: 

“The charges against James Atkins are serious and troubling.  Atkins abused the public trust in his role as a police officer, he violated the trust of the kids who looked up to him as a mentor and a coach, and the parents who put their faith in him. Were it not for the diligence of parents and school officials, and the hard work of prosecutors and detectives with both the Chelsea Police Department and Massachusetts State Police, he may have been able to continue to pilfer funds for kids to be used for his own entertainment. ” Read Press Release, October 1, 2008.  The story was covered by Wickedlocal Medford as well. 

Continue Reading

| by

The Quincy Patriot Ledger reported that two 17 year olds, both from Plymouth were charged with larceny and breaking and entering (B & E) more than a dozen motor vehicles in Plymouth.  The two were arraigned in the Plymouth District Court and pleaded not guilty to the charges.  According to the article numerous residents on Beach, Elm and Pearly Streets observed that their cars had been broken into.  They reported the break-ins to the Plymouth Police.  When officers arrived they saw one of the defendants, Bryan Hunter walking in between cars on Elm Street, manipulating the door handles and trying to get in.  As Hunter entered a vehicle one of the officers grabbed him.  Hunter confessed to the crimes and implicated his friend, the co-defendant Ryan Connors.  Connors refused to speak with the police but he did surrender himself to the station.  Hunter and Connors pleaded not guilty to 5 counts of breaking and entering in the night with intent to commit a felony, 3 counts of larceny of property valued at less than $250, and a charge of larceny of property valued at more than $250. Hunter was also charged with underage possession of alcohol in that he was caught with a bottle of strawberry vodka.  Read complete article, Quincy Patriot Ledger, September 25, 2008. 

The B & E charges are governed by General Laws Chapter 266 Section 16.  The maximum sentence is 20 years in state prison if the case is indicted to the Superior Court.  In some states a B & E case is called a burglary.  If the case remains in the District Court there is a maximum 2 1/2 year sentence possible.  The larceny cases carry a maximum 2 year sentence provided the case stays in the Plymouth District Court.  This charge was presumably brought pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266 Section 30. 

The smartest thing Connors did here was to keep his mouth shut when he went to the police station.  I would estimate that far more than one half of all my clients make some sort of statement before they hire me.  This often presents difficult problems.  Some statements amount to admissions or confessions.  Other statements, while not admissions, contain some sort of falsity that usually does not bode well for the client at trial.  Keep in mind that anything a criminal defendant or suspect says can be used against him unless a judge believes that the statement was coerced or obtained in violation of a constitutional right.  Here, unless the police have some other evidence to prove that Connors was involved in the crimes; i.e. fingerprints, stolen items found in his possession; surveillance tapes, witness identifications, etc., the only way to prove that Connors is guilty is through his co-defendant.  Typically co-defendants do not cooperate with the prosecution unless they are provided with some sort of incentive.  In cases such as this that is rare. 

Continue Reading

| by

The Salem News reported that on Tuesday Danvers police arrested two men responsible for breaking and entering cars at the Liberty Tree Mall.  According to police, a witness saw a man breaking into a car at the mall and stealing an unidentified item from inside.  The witness saw the suspect get into a Chevrolet and drive away.  He called the police and told them what he had just seen.  He provided a description of the suspect, the car in which he fled and a license plate number.  A patrolman received the information and spotted the car.  When he attempted to stop the vehicle the driver took off on Route 114 in Danvers and headed towards Middleton.  The suspect made an illegal u-turn at the Route 114/Route 1 intersection.  This caused a collision between that vehicle and a police cruiser. 

The police were finally able to apprehend the driver and his passenger.  The driver was identified as Lewis Diaz of Lawrence, Massachusetts.  The passenger was Christy Lebron, also of Lawrence.  Inside the car police found stolen car stereos and radio equipment. Diaz was charged in the Salem District Court with receiving stolen property, breaking and entering a motor vehicle, malicous destruction to a motor vehicle, driving without a license, providing a false name to police officers, possession of burglarious tools, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, failure to stop for police, resisting arrest, larceny over $250 and using a motor vehicle during the commission of a felony.  Lebron was charged with receiving stolen property, breaking and entering a motor vehicle and malicious destruction to a motor vehicle. 

In this situation it appears that the case against Diaz is much stronger than the case against Lebron.  An eyewitness saw Diaz break into two cars and take items from those cars.  This person will be able to offer direct evidence against Diaz as to the theft crimes.  The motor vehicle offenses were witnessed directly by the pursuing police officers.  The case against Lebron is a bit more tenuous.  Absent any statement admitting responsibility the case against Lebron is circumstantial.  If the stolen items were in her sight or in her possession then her chance of success at trial are reduced.  If the stolen items were concealed it is conceivable that she was not aware of what Diaz was doing. 

Continue Reading

| by

The Boston Herald reported that on August 7, 2008 Middlesex County register of probate John Buonomo was arrested and charged with eighteen counts of breaking and entering into a depository, eight counts of larceny under $250.00 and eight counts of theft of public property.  An investigation started in June after state employees detected shortages in their copy machines.  State police installed concealed cameras near the copy machines.  Videotapes captured Buonomo getting into the machines and pocketing the cash, usually towards the end of the work day.  Buonomo has no authority to access the copy machines in the Registry of Deeds.  If convicted Buonomo faces twenty years in state prison.  Buonomo is a county wide elected official. 

Larceny in Massachusetts is a criminal act proscribe by G.L. c. 266 sec. 30.  To be found guilty the prosecution must prove that 1) the defendant took the property of another, 2) without the consent of the owner and 3) that he did so with the intention of depriving the owner of that property permanently.  Often times criminal larceny charges are brought as a result of legitimate disputes as to rightful ownership of the property in question.  Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers familiar such cases often convince prosecutors, magistrates or judges that these cases are actually civil in nature and should be dismissed and handled in another forum. 

The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman defends larceny cases throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Larceny cases can be prosecuted in the District Courts or the Superior Courts depending on the dollar amount of the property stolen.  There are usually no minimum mandatory sentences associated with larceny cases.  It is advisable to retain a lawyer with extensive experience if you are charged with a theft crime in Massachusetts.  If you have concerns about a potential criminal matter involving larceny call a lawyer right away. 

Continue Reading

| by

By late 2002 police in various Norfolk County towns were investigating reports of a telephone scam that victimized older persons.   Elderly people reported receiving telephone calls from males purporting to represent family members in trouble and in need of money.  The callers would ask their targeted victims to send certain amounts of money to certain locations.  Some of the victims agreed to meet the caller at the specified location.  Upon arrival they were met by the caller and when they asked about the whereabouts of the relative in trouble they were assured that he or she would be along shortly.  The victims surrendered the money requested, the caller left the area and the family member never showed up.  When the victims returned home they contacted the relative who was supposedly in distress and quickly learned that they had been victims of a scam.  The perpetrator was ultimately apprehended by an undercover police officer who replaced a targeted victim during one of the theft attempts. 

The trial was conducted in Norfolk County.  The defendant made the calls from Suffolk County and appealed claiming that the venue was inappropriate.  The prosecution was brought in part pursuant to G.L. c. 277 sec. 59.  That law makes the crime of larceny by false pretenses eligible for prosecution in any county where the false pretense was made or where the property obtained was carried or received by the defendant.  Rejecting the challenge the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that since the Suffolk County acts were designed to produce detrimental effects in Norfolk County, that the elderly persons were victimized in Norfolk County and that the victims had withdrawn funds from within Norfolk County that venue in Norfolk County was proper.  See Commonwealth v. Price, slip opinion July 29, 2008.

Larceny by false pretenses in Massachusetts is one of the many theft crimes the Law Offices of Stephen Neyman defends on a regular basis. This crime requires the prosecution to prove that you obtained the object through a false statement or representation and that you did so with the intent the defraud an individual or entity and that the victim relies on that false representation in parting with the object. 

Continue Reading