Published on: | by

In Commonwealth v. Martin, a Massachusetts court considered a drug case in which a defendant filed motions to withdraw four guilty pleas related to 30 drug offenses. The case arose during the investigation of the defendant’s boyfriend. Contraband was discovered in the defendant’s car, a search warrant was executed at the defendant’s home, and a controlled buy was conducted with the defendant’s boyfriend’s half-brother. After the investigation, there were four sets of indictments involving 12 substantive drug crimes involving cocaine trafficking, as well as school zone and conspiracy charges.

The defendant pled guilty to the 30 drug offenses. All six of the cocaine trafficking charges were reduced to a lesser offense: possession with intent to distribute. She pled guilty to these and all remaining charges except a charge of possession to distribute a class D substance, a school zone violation, and a firearm violation. She was sentenced to 5-8 years in state prison on the possession with intent to distribute charges and all but one conspiracy charge. She was also sentenced to five years of probation that would follow her time in prison on a conspiracy charge.

Three years later, she filed a motion to withdraw the pleas, arguing there had been no factual basis to establish some of the charges, her guilty pleas weren’t made voluntarily or intelligently, and her attorney was ineffective in failing to file a motion to dismiss certain conspiracy counts that were duplicative and a motion to suppress. Her motions were denied. The judge ruled that the record showed that the defendant was informed of all elements and that the prosecutor recited facts establishing all of the charges.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

In Commonwealth v. Polito, a Massachusetts appellate court considered the case of a defendant found in violation of his probation. The case arose on an afternoon in August 2009, when a police officer responded to a report of domestic battery and assault. The officer saw that the victim was shaking and crying and her nose was flat and swollen. The victim told the officer that the defendant had gotten angry and beaten her with an object, broken a broom, hit her with it, and thrown a mug at her face. The mug broke her nose. The officer arrested the defendant, and on his way out he yelled that the incident was the victim’s fault. The victim suffered a broken nose and finger.

The defendant was indicted on two sets of indictments, and he pled guilty. With regard to the first set of indictments, the defendant was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in a house of corrections on three counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and one witness intimidation count. A portion of the sentence was to be served, with the balance suspended for 10 years with supervised probation. Two conditions of the probation were to undergo mental health evaluation and treatment and to have no contact with the victim. He also received 10 years of concurrent probation with the same conditions for criminal harassment and violating an abuse prevention order.

The defendant also pled guilty on the second set of indictments. For two counts of assault and battery on a public employee and disruption of court proceedings, he was sentenced to 10 years straight probation under the same conditions as the probation for the first set of indictments.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Presenting a forged instrument as a genuine instrument (known as “uttering a forged instrument“) is a crime in Massachusetts under General Laws, Chapter 267, Section 5. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant (1) had the intent to injure or defraud, (2) uttered and published as true a false, altered, or forged instrument (e.g., a check), and (3) knew it was false or altered or forged. This crime is punished by a maximum of 10 years in state prison or up to two years in jail.

In Commonwealth v. Gianatasio, a Massachusetts appellate court reviewed forgery charges. The case arose from two checks the defendant deposited into his personal checking account. The first check was drawn on a woman’s account and made payable to the defendant for the sum of $45,611.94. The second check was drawn on the same account and was for the sum of $25,000.

The woman and her husband were the defendant’s next-door neighbors for years. They became ill in March 2007 and were admitted to the hospital. The husband died in May 2007, and the woman was transferred to a rehabilitation facility, where she died in June 2007. Between March and June 2007, the couple’s checkbook was in the control of the husband’s cousin, who was responsible for writing checks to pay the couple’s bills. A close friend of the couple delivered their mail to the couple and took bills from the mail to the cousin.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Under Massachusetts law, anyone who commits assault or assault and battery may be punished by imprisonment for not more than two and a half years in a house of correction or with a fine of not more than $1,000. However, a defendant can be punished by up to five years in state prison or in the house of correction or by a fine of up to $5,000, or both a fine and imprisonment, when he or she commits assault and battery causing serious bodily injury.

Serious bodily injury includes those injuries that result in permanent disfigurement, the loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb, or organ, or the substantial risk that the victim will die. In a 2014 case, Commonwealth v. Rainey, a Massachusetts appellate court considered the conviction of a defendant convicted of assault and battery causing serious injury. He had appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence of serious bodily injury for the conviction and that the Commonwealth had failed to prove there was an absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellate court explained that a reasonable jury could have interpreted what happened as follows. Three female friends arrived by car to a party. At the party they met a male they knew (Donald Gammon, the victim) who had been drinking and was holding a beer can. They walked towards the party and passed a group that included the defendant. The defendant gave one of the victim’s friends the middle finger as they passed by.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

Recently, a 46-year-old Uber driver was accused of sexually assaulting a passenger in Boston. Uber customers use an app to arrange and pay for rides with drivers who are nearby. The driver pled not guilty to all charges, which included rape and kidnapping. The incident allegedly occurred on December 6, when the woman called an Uber car to take her home after a night spent with friends.

Once the woman was in the car, the driver allegedly said she would need to pay with cash and drove her to an ATM. Once she returned to the car, he drove to a secluded area, jumped into the back seat, and allegedly struck, strangled, and sexually assaulted her. Boston police have stated that they are investigating three other indecent assault allegations related to women using ride-for-hire services.

Rape is a felony charge described in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265 Section 22(b). It is taken very seriously in Massachusetts. To secure a conviction in a rape case, the Commonwealth will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the alleged victim and that the defendant used force or otherwise compelled the victim to submit against his or her will. “Sexual intercourse” means that there was penetration, but it doesn’t have to be significant. Even finger penetration or the use of a foreign object can satisfy this requirement. “Force” is usually defined as a threat of bodily injury, but it doesn’t always mean physical force. Sexual assault, in contrast to rape, is more broadly defined as any sexual activity that is coerced, forced, or unwanted.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

In the recent appellate decision of Commonwealth v. Hernandez, a defendant appealed from a conviction for receiving stolen property. The case arose when the defendant was riding a bicycle down the street, pulling another bicycle along with him. The police stopped him and asked what he was doing. The defendant offered two explanations for having a second bicycle. He also consented to the officers searching the duffel bag he wore on his back.

The duffel bag contained a package of Proactiv with a label addressed to Thomas Shepard. The defendant claimed he found the bike and the box nearby, and he offered to return them both. The officers arrested him on the grounds that he gave conflicting accounts of the objects and was carrying something that was addressed to someone else.

At a bench trial, the owner of the Proactiv, Thomas Shepard, testified that he hadn’t changed the address on his Proactiv shipments when he moved and hadn’t realized he was missing a package until the prosecutor contacted him. The defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty when the state closed its case, but his motion was denied. He was convicted.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

In the recent case Commonwealth v. Thompson, a Massachusetts court considered the conviction of a man charged with selling cocaine in a school zone. While the man’s appeal was pending, the statute related to school zone drug crimes was amended to reduce the radius of the area that is considered a “school zone.” Previously the radius was 1,000 feet, and while the appeal was pending it became 300 feet. An appellate panel ruled initially that the amendment wouldn’t apply retroactively and rejected the defendant’s arguments.

The case arose while the police were patrolling in Cambridge. They watched from an unmarked vehicle as two people sat on the curb next to the parking lot of a convenience store. They were familiar with the parking lot from previous investigations of drug crimes. The two people counted change and were glancing around. The woman stood up and made a call at a pay phone. Soon after, she hung up and came back to the curb. In 10 minutes, the defendant approached on his bike. He didn’t stop but said something to the woman. The woman followed the defendant quickly.

They stopped at a nearby house. They had an exchange that appeared to involve the passing of something between their hands. This happened about 500 feet from the school. The woman continued to pace and returned to the man at the curb. She and the man hurried away, and the defendant got back on his bike and rode off. The detectives pulled into the driveway and approached the house where the man and woman were. The man had a plastic baggie of crack cocaine in his hands, and he dropped it over a nearby fence to drop it.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

As discussed in prior blog posts, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed Senate Bill 2334 in August. The bill created new criminal charges related to domestic violence. It amends chapter 265 to create two new crimes: assault and battery on household members as well as suffocation and strangulation.

Under the new bill, a conviction for first-time assault or assault and battery on a “family or household member” may result in a sentence of two and a half years of imprisonment in the house of correction and a fine of up to $5,000. Family and household members are those people who are married, those who have a child together, and those who are engaged or in a “substantive dating relationship.” The court must also order a convicted defendant to complete a certified batterer’s intervention program, unless it makes written findings that show good cause why this requirement need not be met.

The bill also created a new crime of strangulation or suffocation of any other individual and aggravated strangulation. In the past, strangulation or suffocation could be charged as either felony attempted murder or as simple assault and battery. The new law recognizes that in domestic violence contexts, one partner may strangle the other not to kill the victim, but in order to exert dominance and cause pain and panic that can be used to control the victim. The person committing the strangulation is trying to torture the victim, rather than attempt to murder him or her. However a prosecutor’s only alternative to charging attempted murder was to charge “simple assault and battery.” This is only a misdemeanor, rather than a felony.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

As we previously noted on this blog, in August, Governor Patrick signed the “Act Relative to Domestic Violence,” which changes the law with regard to many aspects of domestic abuse cases. Since it was an emergency act, the provisions took immediate effect. In Massachusetts, domestic violence includes not only physical acts but also attempts to create fear of imminent serious physical harm or rape between family or household members. Family and household members, for purposes of evaluating whether domestic violence is involved, include people who are married or living together, who are related by blood or marriage, who have children together, or who have dated or are dating.

One of the significant changes introduced by the new law involves what is called a “dangerousness hearing,” authorized by Section 58A. This hearing is usually requested by a prosecutor during the arraignment and heard 3-7 days later.

Traditionally, at the dangerousness hearing the prosecutor would present evidence to show the defendant presented an imminent danger to the community and there were no less restrictive means than imprisonment that would ensure the community remained safe. The defense attorney would be able to respond by presenting evidence that there were less restrictive methods than imprisonment to make sure the community is safe. This meant that the defense attorney would summon witnesses, such as the victim who may not have wanted a spouse to stay incarcerated, to contest the prosecutor’s claim that holding the defendant without bail was appropriate.
Continue reading

Published on: | by

In Massachusetts, domestic violence is a crime that includes not only physical harm but also attempts to cause physical harm, triggering fear of imminent serious physical harm or involuntary sexual relations between family or household members. Family and household members include people who are married, are living together, are related by blood or marriage, have children together, or are dating or have dated. In August 2014, Massachusetts Governor Patrick signed a new emergency law known as “Act Relative to Domestic Violence,” which changes the arraignment, bail, detention, and criminal penalties in domestic violence cases. The impact on arraignment is especially significant.

Generally in Massachusetts, a defendant is entitled to a prompt arraignment under Mass. R. Crim. P. 7(a)(1) and a 1996 case known as Commonwealth v. Rosario. Under the former, an arrested defendant is to be brought for arraignment before the court if it is in session already, but if it is not, the defendant is to be brought for arraignment at the next session. Any defendant who receives a summons or has been arrested but is released will be ordered to appear before the court on a certain date.

However, under the new law, if you are charged with a crime involving domestic abuse or strangulation, you are prevented from being released within six hours of being arrested, unless the judge sets bail in open court. The six-hour period is considered a “cooling off” period during which the situation can be de-escalated and the victim gets time to look for safety.
Continue reading

Contact Information
90 Canal St 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: 617-367-0450Fax: 781-523-5454

We accept the following credit cards

Credit cards

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design