Articles Posted in Property Crimes

North Shore Bank, located on Andover Street in Peabody, was robbed Thursday afternoon by two males, and police are still searching for the suspects, according to the Peabody Patch. Police were alerted to a suspicious male in the bank at approximately 2:30 p.m. The man demanded money and left with an undetermined amount, according to a Peabody detective. Surveillance videos reveal one man wearing sunglasses, a hat, and a hood demanding money from a bank teller. There was apparently no weapon, and no one was injured. Police are looking for a Toyota Camry and are asking citizens to call with any information.

From the perspective of a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, there are several issues in this report worth discussing. First of all, the Toyota Camry is perhaps the most common type of car on the road. It has been the best-selling car in America for 10 consecutive years, according to There is no indication in this article that the police are looking for a particular color, year or license plate number. There is also no indication that the police have any physical description of an operator or passenger of the Camry. This is important because in order to lawfully stop a car or a person based on a description, the description cannot be so general that it would include a large number of people. The description must be sufficiently particularized, and it has to go beyond obvious details. Here, the bare “Toyota Camry” description is extremely general. If any person is stopped in connection with this investigation, they may have strong grounds for arguing that the stop was illegal.

It might be that police ultimately receive a tip that a person is suspicious because they were seen with a large amount of cash. If this becomes the case, it should be noted that police must have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before they can legally stop a person, and being in possession of cash is not a criminal activity. Here in Massachusetts, where a robbery is unarmed, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used force or threat of force or assaulted and put the other person in fear. In one Massachusetts case, the Appeals Court said that a jury could find that a defendant’s masked appearance and his gestures could be a basis for fear that the defendant would use force unless his demands were complied with. In Massachusetts, the crime is punishable by life or any term of years. Bank robbery is a federal crime under Title 18, section 2113 of the United States Code. Under the federal law, bank robbery is punishable by up to 20 years.

It appears that the recent robbery of the Dunkin’ Donuts located at 334 Lynnway in Lynn Massachusetts was an inside job. According to the Lynn Item, an employee of the establishment, 43-year-old Margaret Young and her boyfriend, Theron Grady conspired to rob the coffee shop during Young’s shift. It has been reported that the police responded to the location as the result of a call for a robbery in progress. The responding officers spoke with Young and another employee who maintained that a Hispanic male dressed in gray had jumped over the counter and stole money. Although Young failed to identify her boyfriend as the culprit, the other employee positively identified Grady as the robber. It is also alleged that Grady is on a video tape jumping over the counter and taking an undetermined amount of cash. When the couples’ scheme was apparently exposed the woman was fired and the pair is facing charges of unarmed robbery, conspiracy to commit a crime and malicious destruction of property. According to reports, Young directed an employee to “go home” prior to the robbery and face an additional charge of intimidation of a witness.

In Massachusetts, if the defendants do not have extensive criminal records there is a chance that the Essex County District Attorney’s Office will reduce the unarmed robbery charge to larceny of property. A reduction in the charge will enable the case to be resolved in the district court as opposed to the superior court. The charge of unarmed robbery can only be prosecuted in the superior court. However, the charge of larceny over $250.00 can be proceed in the district court.

In Massachusetts, in order for the Commonwealth to prove larceny, it must establish that the defendant took the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. If you have been charged with any crime it is important that you have a Lynn criminal lawyer on your side. Depending on the facts of the case, it is important to develop a theory of defense as soon as possible. In this case, it appears that the Commonwealth will have to proceed against Young under the theory of joint venture. In Massachusetts, the test relative to whether a defendant is a “joint venturer” is whether the defendant was (1) present at the scene of the crime, (2) with the knowledge that another intends to commit the crime or with intent to commit a crime, and (3) by agreement is willing and available to help the other if necessary.

Continue Reading

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that two Haverhill Massachusetts men face criminal charges following a high-speed car chase in Route I-495. The car, estimated to have been traveling over 100 miles per hour, caught the attention of a State Police Officer who was patrolling the highway. The authorities tracked the car which traveled from Amesbury Massachusetts to Haverhill Massachusetts during a chase which ranged with speeds from 55 to 85 miles per hour.

Haverhill police ultimately spotted the car in Haverhill and observed Aldis Suero and Aneudis Mendez both 23, walking nearby. Suero faces the criminal charge of receiving stolen property. According to reports, because Suero was out on bail on another matter the judge revoked his bail ordering that he be held without the possibility of posting bail. Apparently, Suero is also facing criminal charges stemming from and incident of alleged domestic violence. The specific charges are believed to be assault and battery and intimidation of a witness stemming from an incident with his girlfriend. Mendez was also arrested but is expected to be summonsed to Haverhill District Court to answer to a criminal charge of disorderly person. According to the Tribune, Suero’s lawyer maintained that Suero denied that he had “no knowledge” of the car’s ownership and he only knew the driver by the name of “D.”

In Massachusetts, M.G.L.A. 266 § 60 is the statute that relates to the charge an punishment for receiving stolen property. The Commonwealth must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt on order for a defendant to be convicted of receiving stolen property: (1) That the property in question was stolen, (2) That the defendant knew that the property had been stolen, and (3) That defendant knowingly had the stolen property in his possession. All three of these elements must be proved in order for a defendant to be convicted. If the amount of property “received” is valued at less than $250.00 then the charge is a misdemeanor. However, if the value of the property is over $250.00 then a defendant faces the possibility of receiving a sentence to state prison and the crime is considered a felony.

Continue Reading

According to The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, a Lawrence Massachusetts man was arrested and charged with carrying a firearm without a license, discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a building, and possession of ammunition without a firearms identification card. The Tribune reports that police were called to the Fern Street neighborhood due to reports of a man firing up to six gunshots “over his head.” During the early morning hours, a neighbor heard commotion and went to his window where he saw a pair of men. One of the individuals was “holding a gun over [the other person’s] head.” After repeatedly firing the gun, witnesses stated that the man walked into an apartment on Fern Street in Lawrence.

The police arrested this defendant and three of his roommates. The paper reports that one of the roommates was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest while the other two were charged as keepers of a disorderly home. Police recovered a .32-caliber semiautomatic handgun behind the home. Shell casings were also recovered from the street.

If you have been charged with any crime, you must contact a Massachusetts defense attorney to ensure that all of your rights are protected. In any case where “possession” of the alleged item is an element of the crime and experienced trial attorney can evaluate whether filing a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence is a viable option. A successful litigation of a motion to suppress evidence means the suppression of the physical evidence and often times dismissal of the case against a defendant.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense, it important that you contact a criminal attorney familiar with the elements that the government must prove to secure a conviction. For example, to prove the crime of discharging of a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling or other building in use you can face a penalty ranging from by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. However, there are exceptions to the enforcement of this law that include the lawful defense of life and property; any law enforcement officer acting in the discharge of his duties; (c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof; (d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established; (e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined pursuant to statute; and (f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with the statute.

Continue Reading

According to The Lowell Sun, a 34-year-old Lowell Massachusetts man, who was convicted for motor vehicle homicide and operating under the influence of alcohol causing serious bodily injury six years ago found his way back to prison after serving most of his 5 to 6 year committed sentence. The defendant was released from prison to a five year probationary term. However, this week a Superior Court Judge sitting in Lowell Massachusetts found that the defendant violated the terms of his probation after being arrested on charges of domestic assault and battery and malicious destruction of property in an incident involving his sister-in-law. According to reports, he was sentenced to serve the rest of his two-year jail sentence on his conviction for operating under the influence causing serious bodily injury.

If you have been served with a notice from the probation department that they are looking to surrender you because you violated the terms of your probation it is imperative that you contact an experienced Massachusetts trial attorney. The rules that apply during a probation surrender hearing are different from the rules that apply during a trial.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that “the due process clause does not place a per se prohibition on the use of hearsay evidence at probation revocation hearings.” Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 115 (1990). Rather, “[u]nsubstantiated and unreliable hearsay cannot, consistent with due process, be the entire basis of a probation revocation.” The court also considers whether the evidence at the hearing is entirely hearsay and whether there is good cause for not having direct testimony.

In Massachusetts, a probationer has only a conditional liberty interest. The probationer is expected to comply with the conditions of probation. A breach of a condition of probation constitutes a violation, and if the probation officer receives information tending to show that the probationer has breached, the officer may “surrender” the probationer to the court. During a trial, the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the standard at a probation revocation hearing is lower. A probationer’s probation may be revoked based on the probation department establishing a violation by a preponderance of evidence. In Massachusetts, the Courts position is that a probation revocation hearing is not part of criminal prosecution and, thus, a probationer need not be provided with the full panoply of constitutional protections available at criminal trial. However, the Courts have held that the revocation of probation does result in a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus, the Commonwealth must provide probationers with certain protections at surrender hearings. In Massachusetts, the hearsay on which the judge relies must be reliable.

If you have received notice of a “probation violation” it is important that you contact an experienced Massachusetts trial attorney to represent you at the surrender hearing. Effective representation can result in the court not finding you in violation or if you are found in violation convince the judge not to impose the sanction recommended by the probation officer. In certain situations, the submission of a memorandum opposing the finding of a violation is appropriate.

Continue Reading

There was not a dry eye in the audience when a Norfolk County Jury convicted Ryan Bois for the death of a six year old Weymouth girl. According to the Boston Globe, in a courtroom filled with emotion, Judge Janet Sanders told a packed courtroom that this was the “worst she has seen in her fourteen years a a judge” before she imposed four life term sentences. Bois was convicted for the rape, murder and kidnapping of his six year old cousin, Joanna Mullin. According to news reports, the trial lasted six days and the jury deliberated for 8 hours before convicting Bois of first-degree murder, two counts of rape, home invasion, kidnapping, larceny of a motor vehicle, larceny under $250, malicious destruction of property under $250, failure to stop for a police officer and negligent operation of a motor vehicle.

During the trial the defense maintained that Bois, 22 years old, was not guilty by reason of insanity. According to the Boston Globe, the Norfolk County prosecutor countered claiming that Bois’s action were calculated when he raped his young cousin, wrapped her body in bed sheets and a quilt, stole keys to his grandmother’s sport utility vehicle, and put the body in the back seat. The prosecutor presented evidence indicating that after committing this horrific crime, Bois called an acquaintance to get some drugs and during this conversation asked the acquaintance how to dispose of a body.

Understandably unable to listen to the details that led up to their daughter’s death Mullins parents stayed away during the trial. However, many relatives and friends attended the trial at the Norfolk Superior Court located in Dedham, Massachusetts. After the jury returned the guilty verdict the prosecutor read the victim impact statement that Joanna’s parents prepared.

According to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, a fifty six year old North Andover resident Craig Bogosian was arraigned in the Lawrence District Court and charged with larceny by a single scheme of over one million dollars. It is alleged that Bogosian accepted millions from a friend and business associate, also from North Andover, under the guise of expanding his business which sold promotional items to companies that printed the company’s name or logo on shirts, hats and pens. The North Andover Police Department believes that Bogosian’s former friend is out $1.3 million and the police do not know what Bogosian did with the money. According to the Tribune, the funds wired to Bogosian from his former associates company were to be used to finance an expansion of Bogosian’s company. The transferred funds were never used for the business and Bogosian landed himself in the Lawrence District Court answering to these charges.

A person convicted of the felony charge of larceny by scheme faces up to five years in state prison or two years in jail. In Massachusetts, larceny is defined as the unlawful stealing of the personal property of another with the intent to deprive the person of the property permanently. See, M.G.L.A. 266 § 30. Conviction of larceny by false pretenses requires proof that: (1) the defendant knowingly made a false statement of fact; (2) defendant intended that the person to whom the false statement was made would rely on its truth, (3) such person did rely upon the false statement, and (4) person parted with personal property based upon such reliance. Here the government is alleging that Bogosian improperly told his colleague that monies he provided would be used for business purposes and the colleague relied on this representation and provided the cash. However, it is alleged that the funds were not used for the proper purpose and the victim is out over one million dollars. What Bogosian did with the monies apparently remains a mystery. Bogosian is currently scheduled to return to court on April 10, 2009.

Continue Reading

The Lawrence Eagle Tribune reports that the police arrested four Lawrence teenagers and charged them with a number of property offenses after the stolen car they were driving was located using a LoJack tracking device. After finding the stolen car, the police determined that the local youths stole the car, a license plate and a battery from another car before leaving the tow lot located at 24 Medford Street, Lawrence, MA.

According to the Tribune, after the police located the car on Smith Street, they monitored it and ultimately recovered more stolen items including a computer tower, keyboard, monitor and an amplifier that was taken from the trunk of another car. The police arrested four teenagers who were all charged with a number of offenses based on their involvement. The charges included breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony, larceny of a motor vehicle, driving without a license, receiving stolen motor vehicle, malicious destruction of property, attaching improper plates, theft of the license plates and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

Continue Reading

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.