Aaron Glenn Teixeira of Lynn, Massachusetts was arrested Monday pursuant to an arrest warrant. During his apprehension officers found two small bags of crack cocaine and one small bag of marijuana. The arrest took place within one hundred feet of a park or playground. Teixeira has been charged with a School Zone Violation and Possession With the Intent to Distribute a Class B Substance. The police were looking for the defendant as a result of an early report of an assault on one of his customers, a female crack cocaine user. The woman claimed that Teixeira came looking for money that she supposedly owed him for crack cocaine. When she refused to pay he assaulted her. She claims that the defendant kicked her in the chest and intimidated her when she attempted to contact the police. Apparently the assault was witnessed by another woman who was also one of Teixeira’s customers. Bail was set in the amount of one thousand dollars. The case is being prosecuted in the Lynn District Court.
The article goes on to say that the officers who arrested Teixeira saw two calls made to the defendant’s cell phone that involved the purchase of drugs. Absent this information I could confidently say that the felony charges, Possession With Intent would fail and this case would be resolved as a Possession case only. The added material suggests that Teixeira was selling drugs or at a minimum that he intended to sell the drugs. I am inclined to doubt the validity of that information. Here is why. How could the police officers observe “two calls made to Teixeira’s cell phone involving people trying to purchase drugs”? What did they see? Did they see Teixeira on the phone twice? If they did, what could they have heard the person on the other line saying? The answer is simple. Nothing. Any reasonable person would have difficulty believing testimony along these lines. It makes no sense. Rather, it appears that the officer who “heard” that discourse wants to make this case a felony when in fact it is only a misdemeanor at best. That being the case I would expect Teixeira’s Massachusetts Criminal Lawyer to look towards resolving this case as a possession case only. This suggestion is supported by Massachusetts case law. In Commonwealth v. Tripp, a 1982 case, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that possession of eight bags of heroin by itself was insufficient to support a finding that the defendant intended to distribute the drugs. Here, the quantity of substances, two small bags of crack cocaine, is far smaller than that amount of drugs found in Tripp. This quantity of crack cocaine is more consistent with personal use.
The Law Offices of Stephen Neyman is dedicated to defending the accused and to fighting for everyone’s constitutional rights. We are prepared to try every case if necessary. Start your fight now by calling us at 617-263-6800. You can also email us. We want to start defending you now.