If you have been charged with one of these crimes it is important to seek out an experienced Framingham Criminal Lawyer right away. Our office has successfully defendant people in that court time and time again for the past 20 years. Act now by contacting our office.
On December 11, Framingham Police responded to a call dispatch regarding a dispute. There they contacted the defendant who began flailing his arms and yelling at the police. The man was arrested for disorderly conduct. Framingham Police also learned that the man was wanted on a warrant. During a pat frisk police located 2 syringes in the defendant’s pocket. During the booking process police found broken automobile glass in the defendant’s clothing and credit cards in someone else’s name. It was subsequently learned that this man had broken into 2 cars in another part of Framingham. The prosecution charged this individual with larceny over $250 and malicious destruction to property valued in excess of $250. See full article, Metrowest Daily News, December 13, 2008.
Several criminal issues are raised by this arrest. First, possession of a syringe is regulated by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94 Section 27. The law with respect to this section is somewhat ambiguous since the statute was amended in 2006. There is currently no case law in Massachusetts interpreting this statute. This most likely explains why the defendant in this case was not charged with a crime of this nature.
Disorderly conduct is a crime pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 53. It is punishable by up to 6 months in jail. This statute can only apply to conduct that does not involve a lawful exercise of a First Amendment right. For a person to be disorderly there must be disturbing conduct through acts other than speech. It is questionable as to whether the defendant’s conduct in this instance of flailing of his arms and yelling at police constitutes a violation of this statute.
Larceny over $250 is proscribed by G.L. c. 266 Sec. 30. This crime carries a possible 5 years prison sentence if the person is indicted and convicted in the Superior Court. If the case is kept in the District Court there is a maximum 2 year sentence after conviction. The article is unclear as to why the defendant was charged with larceny over $250. The credit cards themselves do not have that value.
Malicious destruction of property over $250 violates G.L. c. 266 Sec. 127. Here, the property destroyed was the car which likely is worth in excess of $250. To prove someone guilty of this crime the prosecution must show that the defendant intended the conduct and the harmful consequences of that conduct. Malicious destruction of property is also a specific intent crime that requires, as an element of the offense, a showing of a cruel, hostile, or vengeful intent in addition to the intentional doing of the unlawful act.