Justia Lawyer Rating
Super Lawyers Badge
Avvo Badge
Massachusetts Bar Association
Top-Rated Lawyer

| by

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.

| by

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. 

Continue Reading

| by

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported that a 35 year old Lawrence was arrested and charged with trafficking heroin in excess of 200 grams.  According to the article the defendant was a major supplier of heroin to Southern New Hampshire.  About 2 months ago this individual was identified by Plaistow, New Hampshire police as the major source of heroin in that area.  Once that determination was made Lawrence police were contacted to assist in an investigation.  The investigation resulted in a search of the defendant’s home on Andover Street in Lawrence during which police confiscated 327 grams of heroin worth an estimated $32,700, and $14,000 in cash.  An arrest of the defendant was made at the apartment after the search.  Also arrested was his girlfriend who was present during the search as well.  Police expect 5 additional arrests from this investigation.  These individuals would make trips to Lawrence to obtain heroin and travel back to New Hampshire where they would sell to teenagers.  At times the defendant himself would go to New Hampshire and make sales.  In the last two weeks an undercover police officer made four purchases from the defendant in Lawrence.  New Hampshire police believe that this arrest will make a major dent in heroin activities in their state.  During a search a police canine located 223 bags of heroin.  Also found were stashes of money, scales, false identification and related heroin trafficking paraphernalia.  The defendant was held on $250,000 bail while his girlfriend was held on $100,000 bail.  Read entire article.

If the newspaper account is accurate, the defendant is likely in a lot of trouble.  He needs an excellent Massachusetts Drugs Crime Defense Lawyer to help him with this case.  Heroin trafficking over 200 grams carries a minimum 15 year state prison sentence.  Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94 C Section 32E makes heroin trafficking a crime.  That statute states that “[a]ny person who trafficks in heroin . . . any derivative thereof by knowingly or intentionally manufacturing, distributing or dispensing or possessing with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense or by bringing into the commonwealth a net weight of fourteen grams or more of heroin . . . any derivative thereof or a net weight of fourteen grams or more of any mixture containing heroin or any . . . or any derivative thereof or any mixture thereof is” guilty of trafficking.  “Two hundred grams or more, be punished by a term of imprisonment in the state prison for not less than fifteen nor more than twenty years. No sentence imposed under the provisions of this clause shall be for less than a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of fifteen years and a fine of not less than fifty thousand nor more than five hundred thousand dollars may be imposed but not in lieu of the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, as established therein.”  Whereas in this case there were 4 controlled buys it will be difficult for the defendant win this case at trial.  Additionally, where the quantity significantly exceeds the threshold for the 15 year mandatory sentence it is not likely that the prosecution will agree to break this case down.  The defendant is also looking at a school zone violation which adds another 2 years mandatory to the sentence. 

The case against the girlfriend might be easier to defend.  If she was merely present at the time of the search and was not a party to the controlled buys she might have a good chance at a successful defense.  One of the Massachusetts jury instructions states that “[i]f it has been proved that the defendant was present at the scene of the crime, that fact alone is not enough to find teh defendant guilty.  Presence alone does not establish a joint venture, even if a person knew about the intended crime in advance and took no steps to prevent it.  Our law does not allow for guilty by association.  There must be proof that the defendant intentionally participate in committing that particluar crime, not just that he or she knew about it”.

Continue Reading

| by

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. 

| by

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).

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 Lawrence Eagle Tribune reported that on October 2, 2008 Raul Rodriguez pleaded guilty to manslaughter and unlawful possession of a firearm.  The conviction stemmed from an incident two years ago during which Rodriguez was playing with a 9 millimeter handgun after a night of heavy drinking.  After trying to clear the weapon and believing that the chamber was empty, Rodriguez pointed the gun at the head of Rafael Ortiz and fired.  The gun discharged and a bullet struck Ortiz in the head killing him.  Rodriguez did not know that his efforts at clearing the weapon were unsuccessful and that he had in fact caused a live round to enter the chamber.   Rodriguez was initially charged with murder.  According to reports, upon initial inquiry Rodriguez was found crying and told the police “I know you guys are going to arrest me,…My buddy’s shot, and it was over drugs.”  No gun was found at the scene.  The judge sentenced the defendant to 2 1/2 years to 3 1/2 years in state prison.  The prosecutor asked for a more severe sentence of 6 to 8 years.  Defense counsel tried to convince the judge to impose a house of correction sentence.  Rodriguez was given a stay of execution of his sentence so that he could wrap up his auto repair business.  Read entire article, Lawrence Eagle Tribune, October 3, 2008. 

Manslaughter in Massachusetts is a crime punishable for up to 20 years in state prison.  Manslaughter is proscribed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 13.  There are two types of manslaughter in Massachusetts, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.  Both come with several nuances and both require an absence of malice.  Voluntary manslaughter can arise 1) from heat of passion upon a reasonable provocation, 2) as a result of the heat of passion induced by sudden combat or 3) as a result of the excessive use of force in self defense or in defense of another.  Involuntary manslaughter can come about as a result of the wanton or reckless conduct.  Wanton or reckless conduct contemplates acts that create a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another. Often times involuntary manslaughter is referred to as criminal negligence or gross criminal negligence.  It is in essence a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation.  It is likely that Rodriguez was charged with involuntary manslaughter under this theory. 

Our office defends people accused of committing violent crimes such as manslaughter.  Manslaughter is a serious crime that is not often charged.  Typically, murder is charged and manslaughter becomes an lesser option for the jury to consider.  Rodriguez was fortunate enough to be represented by an excellent criminal defense lawyer who succeeded in convincing the judge to impose a rather lenient sentence given the nature of the crime.  Hiring the right Massachusetts criminal defense attorney is a critical decision.  Please explore our website for a listing of our services and our experience. 

Continue Reading

| by
Last Thursday two Massachusetts men were charged with committing hate crimes against two Muslim families of Middle Eastern descent.  Boston.com reported that Adam Bonito of Revere and Christopher Giaquinto of Winthrop repeatedly vandalized and damaged cars parked in front of a duplex where the victim lived. One of the counts stems from an incident in September of 2004 where the defendants purportedly broke a windshield and several windows on a Nissan van parked outside the home.  In January and March of 2005 Bonito vandalized another van in front of the house where the victim lived.  Read Full Article, Boston.com September 26, 2008. 
 
A press release from the United States Attorney’s Office in Boston stated that the two men were charged with carrying out a criminal conspiracy that interfered with the fair housing rights of the Muslim families.  The prosecution contends that “it was the plan and purpose of the conspiracy to vandalize a van, believed to belong to one of the residents, in order to interfere with the victim’s housing rights because of race.”  The press release goes on to state that if convicted the defendants face one year in prison and a $100,000.00 fine. 

 
Hate crime laws are designed to protect anyone in a particular jurisdiction against crimes that are motivated by hostility towards a particular designated group.  The federal statute provides for prosecutions of hate crimes committed towards a person’s race, religion, color or national origin provided the victims are engaging in federal protected activities. 

Continue Reading

| by

On December 31, 2008 the defendant Alexis Infante was charged with attempted murder in the Salem Massachusetts District Court.  It was alleged that he attacked his wife with a knife after claiming that she was “bad luck”.  Those charges were eventually reduced to assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.  While he was out on bail however Infante exposed himself and masturbated in front of a young child and her babysitter.  He was charged with open and gross lewdness, also in the Salem District Court.  After that charge issued the defendant was held in custody.  On September 24, 2008 the defendant was given a two year suspended sentence with the time he had already served awaiting trial treated as sufficient.  This sentence accounted for all counts in both cases.  For full details read Salem Daily News, September 25, 2008. 

In the Massachusetts District Courts assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon carries a 2 1/2 year sentence in a house of correction.  The Superior Court also has jurisdiction over this offense.  If the case is indicted a defendant faces 10 years in state prison.  Assault and battery in Massachusetts carries a 2 1/2 year house of correction sentence as well.  Again, this crime could be presented to a grand jury and if indicted you could face up to 5 years in state prison. 

Open and gross lewdness is a crime in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 16.  The statute reads as follows:  “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.”.  Exposure or attempted exposure of one’s genitalia is not an essential element of this crime.  To be convicted of this crime the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt one or more persons was alarmed or shocked by the defendant’s behavior and that the defendant intended to alarm or shock the person.  Keep in mind that this is a very serious charge.  A second or subsequent conviction for this offense can result in the consequence of having to register as a sex offender. 

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