Source: http://andrewberman.com/practice-areas/criminal-defense/violent-crimes/
Timestamp: 2017-06-27 10:34:50
Document Index: 210652687

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 39', '§ 5', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 15']

| VIOLENT CRIMES Criminal Defense and Civil Litigation
Affray (G.L. c. 277, § 39)
Affray is simply a fight between two or more people which puts a member of the public in fear. In order to prove the defendant guilty of Affray, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant fought with one or more other persons;
Second: That the fighting took place in a public place; and
Third: That at least one person in the public place was put in fear as a result of the fighting that occurred.
Affray is a “common law” offense, meaning that the punishment for violating it is not defined by statute. Since the General Laws do not specify a penalty for common law affray, a convicted defendant should be punished under G.L. c. 279, § 5, which provides for “such sentence, according to the nature of the crime, as conforms to the common usage and practice in the Commonwealth.”
Assault (G.L. c. 265, § 13A(a))
An assault is defined by Massachusetts law as either an attempted battery or an immediately threatened battery. An assault can be either an attempt to use some degree of physical force on another person (e.g.,throwing a punch at someone) or it can be a demonstration of an apparent intent to use immediate force on another person (e.g., by coming at someone with fists flying). The defendant may be convicted of assault if the Commonwealth proves either form of assault. In order to prove the defendant guilty of an the “attempted battery” form of assault, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant intended to commit a battery — that is, a harmful or an unpermitted touching — upon a particular person;
Second: That the defendant took some overt step toward accomplishing that intent; and
Third: That the defendant and came reasonably close to doing so.
With this form of assault, it is not necessary for the Commonwealth to show that the alleged victim was put in fear or was even aware of the attempted battery.
In order to prove the defendant guilty of an the “imminent threatened battery” form of assault, the Commonwealth must prove only two things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant intended to put the alleged victim in fear of an imminent battery; and
Second: That the defendant engaged in some conduct toward the alleged victim which the alleged victim reasonably perceived as imminently threatening a battery.
With this form of assault, it is not necessary for the Commonwealth to show that the alleged victim was actually put in fear, but does require the alleged victim to have preceived the defendant’s act.
Assault & Battery (G.L. c. 265, § 13A(a))
An Assault & Battery is either an intentional touching of another person that is likely to cause bodily harm, or a touching of another person to which that person did not consent. In order to prove the defendant guilty of A&B, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
Second: That the defendant intended to touch the alleged victim; and
Third: That the touching was either likely to cause bodily harm to the alleged victim, or was done without his (her) consent.
The Commonwealth is not required to prove that the defendant specifically intended to cause injury to the alleged victim, but only that the defendant consciously and deliberately intended the touching to occur, and that the touching was not merely accidental or negligent.
As an alternative means of proving an A&B, the Commonwealth may show that the defendant intentionally engaged in reckless conduct which caused bodily injury to the alleged victim. A defendant acts recklessly if he (she) knew, or should have known, that such actions were very likely to cause substantial harm to someone, but he (she) ran that risk and went ahead anyway.
As yet another alternative means, the Commonwealth may show that the alleged victim injured him or herself while defending against or fleeing from an assault or A&B. A&B Causing Serious Injury (G.L. c. 265, § 13A (b)(i))
As the name might suggest, this offense is an A&B which leads to serious bodily injury. In order to prove the defendant guilty of A&B Causing Serious Injury, in addition to proving an A&B, the Commonwealth must prove one additional element beyond a reasonable doubt:
Fourth: That the defendant’s touching must have directly caused the serious injury or must have directly and substantially set in motion a chain of events that produced the serious injury in a natural and continuous sequence.
Serious Bodily Injury is one that results in (a permanent disfigurement) (a loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb or organ) or (a substantial risk of death).
As an alternative means of proving an A&B Causing Serious Injury, the Commonwealth may show that the defendant intentionally engaged in reckless conduct which caused serious bodily injury to the alleged victim. A defendant acts recklessly if he (she) knew, or should have known, that such actions were very likely to cause substantial harm to someone, but he (she) ran that risk and went ahead anyway.
As yet another alternative means, the Commonwealth may show that the alleged victim seriously injured himself (herself) while defending against or fleeing from an assault or A&B. A&B on a Person Protected by an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 265, § 13A (b)(iii))
As the name might suggest, this offense is an A&B on a person protected by an abuse prevention order, such as a c. 209A restraining order, by the person who is the subject of that order. In order to prove the defendant guilty of A&B on a Person Protected by an Abuse Prevention Order, in addition to proving an A&B, the Commonwealth must prove three additional ELEMENTS beyond a reasonable doubt:
Fourth: That a court had issued an order pursuant to chapter 209A of our General Laws against the defendant ordering (him) (her):
-to vacate and stay away from particular premises; or
-to stay a certain distance away from the alleged victim; or
-to not to contact the alleged victim; or
-to not to abuse the alleged victim; and
Fifth: That the order was in effect at the time of the alleged A&B; and
Sixth: That the defendant knew that the pertinent terms of the order were in effect.
As an alternative means of proving an A&B on a Person Protected by an Abuse Prevention Order, the Commonwealth may show that the defendant intentionally engaged in reckless conduct which caused bodily injury to the alleged victim. A defendant acts recklessly if he (she) knew, or should have known, that such actions were very likely to cause substantial harm to someone, but he (she) ran that risk and went ahead anyway.
As yet another alternative means of proving an A&B on a Person Protected by an Abuse Prevention Order, the Commonwealth may show that the alleged victim injured himself (herself) while defending against or fleeing from an assault or A&B. A&B on a Pregnant Woman (G.L. c. 265, § 13A (b)(ii))
As the name might suggest, this offense is an A&B on a pregnant woman. In order to prove the defendant guilty of A&B on a Pregnant Woman, in addition to proving an A&B, the Commonwealth must prove two additional ELEMENTS beyond a reasonable doubt:
Fourth: That the alleged victim was pregnant at the time of the alleged A&B; and
Fifth: That the defendant knew, or had reason to know, that the alleged victim was pregnant.
As an alternative means of proving an A&B on a Pregnant Woman, the Commonwealth may show that the defendant intentionally engaged in reckless conduct which caused bodily injury to the alleged victim. A defendant acts recklessly if he (she) knew, or should have known, that such actions were very likely to cause substantial harm to someone, but he (she) ran that risk and went ahead anyway.
As yet another alternative means, the Commonwealth may show that the alleged victim injured herself while defending against or fleeing from an assault or A&B. A&B on a Police Officer (G.L. c. 265, § 13D)
As the name might suggest, this offense is an A&B on a police officer. In order to prove the defendant guilty of ABPO, in addition to proving an A&B, the Commonwealth must prove three additional ELEMENTS beyond a reasonable doubt:
Fourth: That the alleged victim was a police officer public employee; and
Fifth: That the defendant knew the alleged victim was a police officer public employee; and
Sixth: That the alleged victim was engaged in the performance of his (her) duty at the time of the alleged incident.
Sentencing: 90 days to 2.5 years in the House of Corrections Fines: $500 to $5,000
This section applies to any public employee, not just police officers.
As an alternative means of proving an A&B on a on a Police Officer, the Commonwealth may show that the defendant intentionally engaged in reckless conduct which caused bodily injury to the police officer. A defendant acts recklessly if he (she) knew, or should have known, that such actions were very likely to cause substantial harm to someone, but he (she) ran that risk and went ahead anyway.
As yet another alternative means, the Commonwealth may show that the alleged police officer injured himself (herself) while defending against or fleeing from an assault or A&B. A&B on a Child under 14 Causing (Substantial) Bodily Injury (G.L. c. 265, § 13J(b))
If a child under the age of 14 sustains bodily injury due to the wanton or reckless act of the defendant, it is a violation of this section. If the bodily injury sustained is “substantial”, the penalties increase. In order to prove the defendant guilty of A&B on a Child under 14 Causing Bodily Injury, the Commonwealth must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the alleged victim was a person under 14 years of age;
Second: That the defendant touched the person of the alleged victim without having any right or excuse for doing so;
Third: That the defendant intended to touch the alleged victim; and
Fourth: That the alleged victim suffered bodily injury.
If the victim sustains substantial bodily injury, the penalties are increased:
Sentencing: Up to 2.5 years in the House of Corrections or up to 15 years in State Prison
Bodily Injury in this section is defined as a “substantial impairment of the physical condition”, including: (a burn)(a fracture of any bone)(a subdural hematoma)(any injury to any internal organ)(any injury which occurs as the result of repeated harm to any bodily function or organ including human skin) or (any physical condition which substantially imperils a child’s health or welfare). “Substantial bodily injury” is bodily injury which creates a permanent disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of a function of a body member, limb or organ, or substantial risk of death.
As an alternative means of proving an A&B on a on a Child under 14 Causing Bodily Injury, the Commonwealth may show that the defendant intentionally engaged in reckless conduct which caused bodily injury to the alleged victim. A defendant acts recklessly if he (she) knew, or should have known, that such actions were very likely to cause substantial harm to someone, but he (she) ran that risk and went ahead anyway.
As yet another alternative means, the Commonwealth may show that the alleged victim sustained bodily injury while defending against or fleeing from an assault or A&B. Wantonly or Recklessly Permitting (Substantial) Bodily Injury to a Child under 14 (G.L. c. 265, § 13J(b))
If a child under the age of 14 sustains bodily injury due to the wanton or reckless act of the defendant, it is a violation of this section. If the bodily injury sustained is “substantial”, the penalties increase. In order to prove the defendant guilty of Wantonly or Recklessly Permitting Bodily Injury to a Child under 14, the Commonwealth must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant had the care and custody of the alleged victim;
Second: That the alleged victim was a person under 14 years of age;
Third: That the alleged victim suffered bodily injury; and
Fourth: That the defendant wantonly or recklessly permitted that injury to occur
This section applies equally to a defendant who wantonly or recklessly permits another to commit an assault and battery upon a child under the age of 14.
Bodily Injury in this section is defined as a “substantial impairment of the physical condition”, including: (a burn)(a fracture of any bone)(a subdural hematoma)(any injury to any internal organ)(any injury which occurs as the result of repeated harm to any bodily function or organ including human skin) or (any physical condition which substantially imperils a child’s health or welfare).
Substantial bodily injury is bodily injury which creates a permanent disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of a function of a body member, limb or organ, or substantial risk of death.
Persons who have care and custody may include a parent, guardian, employee of a home or institution or any other person with equivalent supervision or care of a child, whether the supervision temporary or permanent.
A defendant acts recklessly if he (she) knew, or should have known, that his (her) (actions were)(failure to act was) very likely to result in bodily harm to the alleged victim but he (she) ran that risk and (went ahead anyway) (failed to act anyway).
Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, § 15A(b))
An Assault & Battery With a Dangerous Weapon (ABDW) is an A&B, using a dangerous weapon, which the law considers to be “any item intentionally used in a way that it reasonably appears to be capable of causing serious injury or death to another person.” In order to prove the defendant guilty of ABDW, the Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
Third: That the touching was done with a dangerous weapon.
Sentencing: Up to 2.5 years in the House of Corrections to up to 10 years in State Prison
VICTIM 60+ YEARS OLD
Sentencing: Up to 10 years in State Prison
A second conviction of ABDW on an elderly person carries a 2 year minimum mandatory sentence.
Upon Another who is Pregnant
In Violation of a Vacate, Restraining or No Contact Order
Upon a Child Under the Age of 14
Sentencing: Up to 2.5 years in the House of Corrections or up to 15 years in State Prison.
For the purposes of this section, serious bodily injury means bodily injury which results in a permanent disfigurement, loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb or organ, or a substantial risk of death.
If you have been charged with a violent crime – whether it is homicide, assault charges, domestic violence, sexual assault or any other type of violent crime- you know that the stakes are high. Whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony, penalties for conviction can result in serious and often life-long consequences that can impact your wallet, your personal and professional reputation, your future employment, your driving privileges and fundamental rights including your freedom. Every case is unique, but in every case – at every stage of the proceedings- both the facts and law must be scoured to identify issues that will maximize your chances of success both prior to and during a trial.
A crime is, by definition, “any act or omission (of an act) in violation of a local, state or federal law forbidding or commanding it.” The “elements” of violent crimes are defined by statute and the government needs to have had ‘probable cause’ to arrest, and produce evidence ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to convict, as to each individual element of the offense. So, for example, while an Assault and Bettery with a Dangerous Weapon case can be won for lack of evidence that the weapon was ‘dangerous’, it can also be won if the government can’t prove that the defendant intended to touch the victim or that the victim didn’t consent to the touching. This principle applies equally to any violent crime charge, from simple assault charges to murder in the first degree. It is crucial to identify and request all of the evidence to which a defendant is entitled, and work to exclude as much of it as possible with well-crafted motions specific to your case. It is also not sufficient to accept the government’s evidence at face value, as an independent investigation may develop additional evidence that can undermine the government’s case against you. Often, experts can be used to further your cause. Everything that is done during the case is with the singular purpose of attacking the elements of the offense to obtain either an outright dismissal or a “Not Guilty” verdict at trial. If the decision is made to accept a plea bargain, it is always better to negotiate from a position of strength.
Criminal cases have constitutional dimensions, in particular the Bill of Rights. The Constitution, and the case law interpreting it, limits what the government can do and requires them – the police, the prosecution and the court- to do it in a certain way. A motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause is based on the 4th Amendment, as are motions to suppress evidence seized without a warrant (or with a defective one). A motion to suppress statements a defendant may have given to the police can be based on the 5th Amendment right against Self-Incrimination or the 6th Amendment right to an attorney. You have the right to cross-examine witnesses at trial because of the 6th Amendment’s Confrontation Clause and the right to bail before trial because of the 8th Amendment … and so on. The Bill of Rights was, by design, broadly written and a creative attorney can use the law interpreting it to challenge the probable cause to arrest you or to exclude key pieces of evidence against you, both prior to and during trial. The Massachusetts Constitution, which often provides more protection than the Bill of Rights, must be considered as well. Constitutional issues are common with assault charges, domestic violence charges, sexual assault charges and homicide charges. If they are not preserved during the course of your case – either because your criminal attorney didn’t identify the issue or didn’t assert it properly- they are, with some exception, waived for the purposes of appeal.
If your case does go to trial, you want an experienced trial attorney who has worked from the outset to know the law and facts of your case better than anyone else in the courtroom. It is a matter of preparation, communication, experience and an ability to think on your feet in the midst of a fluid, stressful and often acrimonious setting. Evidence in a criminal case that may have passed constitutional muster can still be excluded under the Rules of Evidence, Criminal Procedure or statutes applicable to its admissibility and it is crucial for your attorney to have an intimate knowledge of the appropriate objections, which often need to be formulated and asserted by your criminal defense lawyer in a split second. The failure to object will result in evidence being used against you that could have been excluded, and the failure to preserve the issue will destroy your chances of a successful appeal. To the extent evidence can’t be excluded, it must be attacked at every opportunity. An experienced criminal trial attorney will often be able to decimate the credibility of government witnesses on cross-examination and, if appropriate and necessary, offer counter-evidence in support of your innocence. All of this must be done in a way that lends credibility to you and your criminal defense in front of the jury that will ultimately decide your fate.
Contact a Massachusetts Violent Crimes Attorney
If you are under investigation or have been charged with murder, assault with intent to murder, assault & battery with a dangerous weapon, or any other type of violent crime, the attorney you choose is the single most important decision you will make. I have been dealing with criminal cases at both the trial and appellate level for 18 years, as a Prosecutor, a Criminal Defense attorney and as a Special Prosecutor. I am happy to meet with you and discuss your case at no cost to you. Please call at 617.723.4163 or fill out the Contact Form to schedule an appointment at your convenience.