Case Results
Commonwealth v. K.B.
2ND OFFENSE OUI: REDUCED TO 1ST OFFENSE OUI
Defendant was convicted of Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) in 2012 in the Taunton District Court. In 2017, Defendant was charged with OUI (second offense) arising out of an arrest in West Bridgewater. In the new OUI, Defendant had a blood-alcohol-content of 0.27%, which is three times over the legal limit of 0.08%. On the scene, Defendant was described as “legless” and officers have to physically assist him into the police cruiser and they had to physically assist him into the police station. The booking process was videotaped and the Defendant was obviously intoxicated. He admitted to being an alcoholic and taking prescribed medication to treat his alcohol addiction.
Result: A second-offense OUI may be reduced to a first-offense OUI if the first-offense OUI occurred more than 10 years ago; this is known as a Cahill disposition, Commonwealth v. Cahill, 442 Mass. 127 (2004). In this case, the Defendant did not qualify, technically, for a Cahill disposition because his first-offense OUI did not occur more than 10 years ago. In fact, the first-offense OUI occurred approximately five years ago. Even though the Defendant did not technically qualify for a Cahill disposition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to reduce the second-offense OUI down to a first-offense OUI and the Judge imposed a first-offense OUI sentence instead of a second-offense sentence. With a second-offense OUI, a Defendant faces more severe penalties. In this case, Defendant received the benefit of a first-offense sentence.
Commonwealth v. J.L.
NO CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST MILITARY VETERAN AND HEROIN ADDICT FOR POSSESSION OF FENTANYL
Undercover officers were in a high-crime area of Brockton conducting patrols for narcotics activity. Undercover officers ran a board of probation check for the registered owner of a vehicle (defendant) and found that the Defendant had charges for drug possession. Officers proceeded to follow the Defendant’s vehicle. Officers concluded that the Defendant was engaging in activity consistent with being the purchaser of narcotics. The Defendant made a U-turn and pulled into the parking lot of a grocery store. Officers observed someone approach the passenger side of the Defendant’s vehicle and reach into the Defendant’s vehicle. Officers believed that the Defendant was purchasing narcotics from the person who approached and reached into his vehicle. After the alleged drug transaction, officers stopped the Defendant’s vehicle. While stopping the Defendant’s vehicle, officers observed that the Defendant was engaging in furtive movements consistent with trying to hide or conceal evidence. Officers observed a syringe in the driver’s side door compartment. Officers observed a knotted baggie in the center console. Officers seized the knotted bag and the contents of the baggie tested positive for Fentanyl. Defendant was charged with Possession of Class A Substance to wit: Fentanyl (G.L. c. 94C, §32).
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan secured a Clerk-Magistrate Hearing on the criminal charge giving his client an opportunity to potentially have the criminal complaint dismissed before any criminal complaint was issued. At the hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his client was honorably discharged from the military. During his military service, he became disabled and he was now a disabled veteran. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client developed a drug addiction / opiate addiction following his discharge from the military. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that his client was actively undergoing psychological treatment and substance abuse treatment with the Department of Veteran Affairs to treat his severe drug addiction and mental health disorders. At the conclusion of the hearing, no criminal charges were issued saving this military veteran from having a criminal record.
Commonwealth v. Jane Doe
CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FOR BREAKING & ENTERING AND LARCENY AGAINST CERTIFIED NURSING ASSISTANT DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING
The alleged victim went to the Brockton Police Department reporting that the mother of his one year-old daughter (defendant) broke into his vehicle and stole his cell phone. Officers called the Defendant in an effort to obtain the victim’s cell phone but the Defendant was uncooperative and argumentative with officers. The Defendant eventually returned the victim’s phone but it was smashed and damaged. As a result of the victim’s allegations, Brockton Police sought criminal charges for Breaking and Entering in the Daytime with the intent to commit a felony (G.L. c. 266, §18) and Larceny under $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, §30).
Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there has been a contentious relationship between the Defendant and the alleged victim. Several years ago, Attorney Noonan’s client was the victim of an assault by the alleged victim, which resulted in the father being charged. There were contentious proceedings in the Probate and Family Court between the parties over custody of the child and child support. Defendant became upset over the father’s infidelity. Defendant was being harassed by the father’s current girlfriend. Defendant was further upset about the fact that she was working as a CNA and supporting the child without any support from the father. The alleged victim appeared at the Clerk’s Hearing and Attorney Noonan, along with the Clerk-Magistrate, mediated the dispute between them. The parties were able to mediate the dispute and the criminal complaints were dismissed.
Commonwealth v. J.K.
DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST ELECTRICIAN FROM STOUGHTON DISMISSED AT TRIAL FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE
The client, an electrician from Stoughton, was arrested and charged with Assault & Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265, §13M) stemming from an incident with the mother of his child. The client was operating his vehicle. The child’s mother was in the passenger seat and his two year-old daughter in the backseat. An argument ensued where the child’s mother began to attack and punch the client, as he was driving the car. He pulled over and the child’s mother kicked him out of the car and drove off with the daughter in the backseat. The client, left abandoned on the street, called 911 to report that he had been assaulted and kicked out of his car. He was concerned about the safety of his child. The police went to the residence of the child’s mother and she told the police that the Defendant grabbed and twisted her hand during the car ride. Based on statement of the child’s mother, police arrested the Defendant.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan marked the case for trial and advised the prosecutor that the Defendant was the victim of the attack. Attorney Noonan explained that the child’s mother would incriminate herself were she to testify against the Defendant at his trial. She had a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for physically assaulting the client, kicking him out of the car, and taking off with their daughter. Attorney Noonan explained that, without the testimony of the child’s mother, there was insufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. For example, the child’s mother did not call 911; the child’s mother did not have any physical injuries to corroborate her claim that the Defendant twisted her hand; there were no photographs of her hand to show any physical injuries; she did not seek any medical attention; she was not upset or emotional in speaking to police, and the Defendant never admitted to physically touching her (in fact, as evidenced from his 911 call, Defendant was adamant that he was the victim of an assault). On the day of trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.
Commonwealth v. John Doe
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR RECKLESS OPERATION OF A VEHICLE AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENT DISMISSED AT CLERK-MAGISTRATE HEARING
Boston Police responded to a car accident on Boylston Street. Defendant stated that he lost control of his vehicle while taking a sharp turn and crashed into three parked cars. Defendant admitted that he was speeding and trying to “show off” or impress his friends and lost control of his car. He was traveling at 55 mph in a 25 mph zone. Defendant admitted that he made a stupid mistake. The three vehicle sustained heavy damage. Police filed an application for criminal complaint against the Defendant for Reckless Operation of a Vehicle (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)).
Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the criminal complaint dismissed. Prior to the hearing, Attorney Noonan ensured that the owners of the three damaged vehicles were fully compensated by insurance. Attorney Noonan had his client complete a driver’s safety course. Attorney Noonan presented evidence that his client was an honor roll student at Curry College where he is studying criminal justice. Attorney Noonan introduced character letters from the client’s employer where he works as a Security Officer. The Clerk issued a civil citation for Speeding but dismissed the criminal charge.
$279,000 Slip and fall in store parking lot resulting in fibula fracture
Client slipped and fell in a parking lot. She sustained an avulsion fracture of the right fibula which required surgical repair. She also suffered an anterior talo-fibular ligament tear which required surgical repair. Client also sustained serious nerve damage in ankle. Client underwent many rounds of many types of injections for pain management. Client underwent extensive therapy.
Case Results: The Law Offices of Gerald J. Noonan settled the claim for $279,000.
Wrongful Death Child Drowning in Neighbor’s Pool
On July 22, 2012, a 2 year-old girl walked out of her house and wandered into her next-door neighbor’s backyard where she climbed up the ladder of an above-ground pool. Some neighbors would later say they saw the toddler was standing on top of the ladder, alone, kicking her feet and singing as she splashed the water. She would later be pulled from the neighbor’s pool and she was unresponsive and not breathing. The ambulance responded and attempted to revive the victim. She was taken to the emergency room where she was pronounced dead. The owner of the above-ground pool was cited for two city ordinances for failing to obtain a city permit for the above-ground pool and failing to erect a fenced enclosure around the above-ground pool. The owner went on a weekend vacation and did not remove the ladder before leaving. During the course of Attorney Brendan J. Noonan’s investigation he learned that the triple-decker house next-door had over 9 children living in it and that on several occasions neighborhood children had used the neighbor’s pool without permission. This proved important in our claim under the Child Trespasser Statute, G.L. c. 231, § 85Q.
Case Results: The claim was settled for the policy maximum.
Commonwealth v. K.L. – Plymouth District Court
COMMONWEALTH SEEKS TO JAIL THE DEFENDANT FOR 90 DAYS FOR COMMITTING NEW CRIMES WHILE ON BAIL FOR PENDING CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM BUT ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS HIS CLIENT’S RELEASE.
Defendant, a West Bridgewater resident, was arraigned in the Plymouth District Court on the following charges involving his ex-girlfriend: Assault and Battery (G.L. c. 265, §13A), Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, §15A), and Stalking (G.L. c. 265, §43). At his arraignment, Defendant was ordered not to contact the ex-girlfriend. On the day of his arraignment, the ex-girlfriend obtained an Abuse Prevention Restraining Order (G.L. c. 209A) against the Defendant, which ordered him not to contact her, to stay away from her, and to not abuse her.
On 11.16.19, the ex-girlfriend reported to the police that the Defendant violated the restraining order in many different ways: First, she provided police with a phone call the Defendant made to her, Second, she provided police with two text messages he sent her, Third, she claimed that the Defendant contacted her friend on Facebook, and Fourth, Defendant was driving around in the parking lot of her place of employment where he got into a car accident with her co-worker and told the co-worker to lie about the accident because he knew he would get in trouble if authorities found out that he was in the parking lot of her place of employment. As a result, police charged the Defendant with three-counts of Violation of an Abuse Prevention Order (G.L. c. 209A, §7)
At his arraignment on the new charges, the prosecution filed a Motion to Revoke Bail (under G.L. c. 276, §58) and requested holding the Defendant in jail, without bail, for a period of ninety (90) days because: Defendant violated a condition of his release, Defendant committed a new crime while on release, Defendant’s release will endanger the community, and there are no conditions of release that the Defendant is likely to abide by. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to release his client on certain conditions, including GPS monitoring.
Commonwealth v. K.O.
LARCENY CHARGE AGAINST COLLEGE STUDENT FOR STEALING MONEY, ON SEVEN OCCASIONS, FROM HIS EMPLOYER’S CASH REGISTER IS DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING.
Client is an 18 year-old college student from Raynham with no criminal record. He worked at a department store as a casher while he attended college. On seven (7) occasions, the client took money from the cash register for a grand total of $411.29. The employer discovered the thefts and reported it to the police. When the client arrived for work, a police officer brought him into the store manager’s office. The client admitted to stealing the money and apologized. Client was charged with Larceny under $1,200 (G.L. c. 266, §30).
Result: At the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence showing that his client was a good kid who made a stupid mistake. Client graduated from Boston College High School where he was on the varsity football team and was a standout athlete on the track team. He was a good student. He got accepted to a prestigious college but dropped out after the first semester because of depression, which had gone untreated. He moved back home and enrolled at Massasoit Community College. At the time of the offenses, the client was still experiencing depression and was not thinking clearly. After he was charged, client sought mental health treatment for the first time and he experienced significant improvement and was a much different person. The client paid restitution to the department store for the money he had stolen. The case was dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing.
Commonwealth v. J.M. – Brockton District Court
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR OPERATING TO ENDANGER AGAINST A FURNITURE MANUFACTURER WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD IS DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING.
Defendant is a 35 year-old Brockton resident with no criminal record. He works as a furniture manufacturer. He is happily married and just had his first baby. Brockton Police responded to the scene of a motor vehicle accident. The client came to a stop to allow a school bus to make a turn. The vehicle behind the client became impatient and beeped at him, as he was waiting for the school bus to pass by. After the school bus made its turn, the client proceeded to drive but the other driver was following him very closely. The other driver was very impatient and was riding way to close to the client’s car. Because the other driver was right on his butt, the client break-checked the other driver, tapping his brakes, as a means to get her to back off. When the client tapped his brakes, the other driver rear-ended him. At the scene, the client admitted to the police that he brake-checked the other driver. The other driver was very upset at the scene. Client was charged with Operating to Endanger (G.L. c. 90, §24(2)(a)).
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was successful in getting the Operating to Endanger charge dismissed at the Clerk-Magistrate Hearing. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the damage to the client’s vehicle was very minimal, showing that this was a low-impact collision. Attorney Noonan presented evidence showing that the client’s car insurance covered the property damage to the other vehicle. The other driver was not injured and she had been fully compensated by insurance. The client had no criminal record. The client also had a very good driving record with no prior driving violations whatsoever.