Result

Docket No.: 1515 CR 4971

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was charged with four felony counts of Malicious Destruction of Property. The allegations were that the Defendant was terminated from the Company he was employed at for over 30 years. The police report alleges that the Defendant vandalized the Company’s outdoor air chiller unit on at least four different occasions. The company told police that the equipment was vital to the day to day operation of the business. The company alleged that they had to shut down production due to the vandalism. The company claimed that the value of the damage caused by the Defendant was approximately $102,000.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed. Attorney Noonan argued that the police report failed to present sufficient probable cause to support each element of the felony offenses.

Docket No.: 1515 CR 4306

OPERATING w/ SUSPENDED REGISTRATION: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING
UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING
UNREGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLE: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

While monitoring traffic, Police ran the registration on the Defendant’s vehicle and found that the Defendant’s insurance was revoked. Police pulled the Defendant over and he admitted that his vehicle was not registered and not insured. Defendant had a bad driving record. In 2004, his driver’s license was revoked for one-year for operating to endanger. In 2005, his license was suspended. In 2006, his license was revoked for 60 days due to surchargable events. In 2007, his license was revoked for 60 days.

Result: On the first court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan convinced the prosecutor to dismiss all charges against his client.

LARCENY FROM PERSON: DISMISSED
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT LARCENY: DISMISSED

Police received a 911 call from an Ice Cream Shop reporting that a male party attempted to steal the tip jar on the counter in front of the service window. The clerk caught the Defendant in the act of stealing the tip jar and he dropped the tip jar and ran out of the store. The caller provided a very specific description of the male including his clothing. A second 911 call came in from the owner of the Ice Cream Shop. She was pursuing the male suspect in her vehicle and reported that he was hiding in the woods. Police pursued the male party in the woods and located him with a K-9. The witnesses identified the male party in the woods as the person who attempted to steal the tip jar. At the police station, Defendant admitted to trying to the steal the tip jar. Defendant stated that he conspired with another person to commit a larceny at the Ice Cream Shop. The other party was the get-a-way driver who fled the scene when the Defendant ran out of the store.

Result: At his first court appearance, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan was able to get the Larceny from Person and Conspiracy charges dismissed.

UNLAWFUL POSS. OF AMMUNITION: DISMISSED
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED

At 12:30 a.m., police responded to the scene of a motor vehicle accident. Defendant was driving his pick-up truck and struck a utility pole. Upon arrival, police called the ambulance and the Defendant was transported to the emergency room. Upon investigation, it was determined that the Defendant operated his vehicle negligently so as to endanger the safety of others. Police observed heavy front-end damage to the pick-up indicating that the Defendant was operating at a high rate of speed. Contents in the bed of the pick-up had been scattered all over the road. Police observed extensive damage to the utility, which had been broken in half also indicating that the Defendant struck the pole at a high rate of speed. Police observed very little skid marks prior to the crash. Police searched the Defendant’s pick-up truck and found a box containing 50 cartridges of .357 caliber ammunition. Police also found 13 cartridges of .38 caliber ammunition. Defendant did not have a Firearms Identification Card (FID) or any license to possess the ammunition. Defendant was a 21 year-old male with no criminal record. He had an Associate’s Degree and planned on enrolling as a student at Bridgewater State University. He was employed as full-time construction worker. He was also employed by the city as a snow-plower. The issuance of the criminal complaint would have jeopardized Defendant’s employment for the city as a snow-plower and would have affected his ability to enroll in college.

Result: At a clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police department and the clerk-magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint. As a result, no criminal charges will appear on the Defendant’s record.

UTTERING FALSE PRESCRIPTION: EXPUNGED

Defendant is a 30-year-old woman with no criminal record. She is college educated. She has degrees in Graphic Design and Programming. She has been gainfully employed with the same company for 12 years, progressing from payroll, to accounts manager, to human resources manager. She earned a position with an international company as a data systems analyst. Defendant was charged with a felony offense of Uttering a False Prescription. The felony was docketed on her permanent record. She has been applying for positions with several international corporations, which perform extensive criminal background checks. She has not applied for any positions due to the felony charge on her record. In Massachusetts, expungement is extremely rare and only happens in very limited circumstances. In most, if not all cases, the Defendant’s remedy is to seal the record, not expunge the record.

Result: In a very rare case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to obtain a court order permanently expunging the Defendant’s record. Expungement involves the removal and destruction of records “so that no trace of information remains.”

ASSAULT & BATTERY: NOLLE PROSS
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: NOLLE PROSS
RESISTING ARREST: CWOF
STALKING: Amended to THREATS TO COMMIT A CRIME: CWOF

The alleged victim dated the Defendant. They dated for 9 months. She states that the Defendant was “very controlling” over the course of the relationship. He controlled what clothing she wore and he controlled what people she could talk to. They broke up. Two days after the break-up, Defendant called the alleged victim at 1:00 a.m. He called her 4 times in a row screaming at her. In the last call, Defendant threatened to burn her house down. Approximately 15 minutes after the phone call, Defendant showed up to the alleged victim’s house. He barged into the house very intoxicated. She claims that the Defendant was screaming and yelling at her. She claims that she felt that the Defendant was going to hit her. She alleges that she was in fear of her life. The alleged victim’s parents got the Defendant to leave. The alleged victim called the Defendant’s mother to come pick him up. The alleged victim looked out her window and saw the Defendant fighting and wrestling with his father (defendant’s father) in the street. She called 911. Police arrived and observed the Defendant fighting his father in the street. The officer intervened. The officer ordered the Defendant to stop fighting his father. The officer attempted to gain control of the Defendant’s right arm but he repeatedly pulled his arm away. The officer warned the Defendant that he was spray him with mace if he continued to resist. The Defendant continued resisting and the officer sprayed him in the face and placed him under arrest. The police officer observed a 5 gallon container of gasoline in the street where the Defendant and his father were fighting. The alleged victim’s mother came outside. She picked up the gas container and observed that it was less than half-way full of gasoline. Police interviewed the Defendant’s father. The father stated that he received a call from the alleged victim stating that the Defendant barged into her house intoxicated and he needed to be removed. The father, after much persistence, was able to get the Defendant in his car to drive him home. While driving the car home, the Defendant stated that he was “going to burn that shit down.” The Defendant also threatened to kill himself. The Defendant jumped out of the moving car and ran home where he went into the garage and retrieved the 5 gallon container of gasoline. His father tackled him in an attempt to prevent the Defendant from going to the alleged victim’s house to carry out his threat. The Defendant was able to wrestle away from his father and run over to the alleged victim’s house; 1-2 streets away. The father got into his car and drove to the alleged victim’s house where he confronted the defendant in the street. The father tackled the Defendant to the ground and attempted to hold him down until police arrived.

Immediately, the District Attorney’s Office filed a Motion with the Court requesting that the Defendant be held in custody for 120 days or until his trial because he was “dangerous” and posed a danger to the alleged victim and the public if he were released. After a Dangerousness Hearing in which Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim and her mother, Attorney Noonan was successful in obtaining the release of his client with certain conditions.

The Commonwealth was intent on finding the Defendant Guilty of all the offenses and having him serve jail time. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the Stalking charge arguing that the incidents of Stalking did not occur “over a period of time,” as required by statute. Attorney Noonan argued that the alleged acts of Stalking occurred within the time-span of 45 minutes, which is inconsistent with the language of the statute, which requires three instances of stalking “over a period of time.” Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was denied but he preserved the issue for appeal.

Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared for trial. He obtained an arsenal of information to attack the alleged victim’s credibility at trial. Attorney Noonan obtained text messages showing that the Defendant broke up with the alleged victim – and not the other way around. Attorney Noonan obtained text messages showing that the alleged victim initiated contact with the Defendant on the night of the incident – and not the other way around. Attorney Noonan established that the alleged victim did not call the police or tell her parents when the Defendant threatened to burn her house down in the phone call. Rather, the alleged victim went back to sleep. Shortly, thereafter, the alleged victim saw the Defendant walking up the front steps to her home. Again, she did not call the police but decided to let him into the house showing that she did not take his threat to burn the house down seriously. When the Defendant was inside the house, Attorney Noonan obtained previously testimony from the mother that the Defendant did not touch anyone when he was inside the house. Attorney Noonan elicited testimony from the mother that there was no physical confrontation whatsoever in the home and it took less than one minute to get the Defendant to leave. After the Defendant left, the alleged victim nor her parents called 911 – but rather they all went back to sleep showing that they did not take his threats seriously. When the alleged victim looked out the window and saw the Defendant fighting with his father in the street, she told police at the scene that she obtained a gas can close by. Attorney Noonan obtained the alleged victim’s 911 call in which the alleged victim never tells the 911 dispatcher that the Defendant threatened to burn her house down or that she observed a gas can in the street. The 911 call shows that the alleged victim was not fearful, scared, crying, breathing heavy, etc. Rather, the 911 tape shows that the alleged victim was calm and unemotional. She even laughed at one point in the call, showing that she did not take the Defendant’s threat seriously. After the Defendant was arrested, the police officer interviewed the alleged victim and her parents. Attorney Noonan, in a prior hearing, established that the alleged victim and her parents declined getting a restraining order because they did not feel it was necessary. A week after the incident, the alleged victim obtained a restraining order. Attorney Noonan found a restraining order that the alleged victim filed against a previous ex-boyfriend several years before the Defendant’s case. The alleged victim applied and obtained the prior restraining order with the assistance of her mother. Attorney Noonan contended that the alleged victim was familiar with the process of obtaining a restraining and had she been in imminent fear of the Defendant she would have obtained one immediately. Attorney Noonan also argued that the alleged victim’s mother had taken precautions to protect her daughter in the past by assisting her daughter in getting a restraining order. Had the alleged victim’s mother felt that the Defendant posed a danger to her daughter, she would have persuaded her daughter to get a restraining order – as she did in the past. Attorney Noonan felt that the alleged victim’s mother did not persuade her daughter in getting a restraining order against the Defendant because she felt that the Defendant did not pose a danger to her daughter. After the alleged victim obtained a restraining order against the Defendant, Attorney Noonan obtained evidence of the alleged victim attempting to contact the Defendant. Attorney Noonan obtained a text message that the alleged victim sent to the Defendant’s mother. Attorney Noonan obtained another text message that the alleged victim sent to the Defendant’s friend. Attorney Noonan obtained information that the alleged victim sent a request to the Defendant’s Instagram account in an effort to contact him. When all her attempts to contact the Defendant failed, the alleged victim went into court and removed the restraining order. Attorney Noonan obtained an audio recording and transcript of the hearing. In the hearing, the alleged victim states that the real reason why she sought the restraining order against the Defendant was to give the Defendant some time to get himself together – rather than being in fear of him. When asked about the alleged incident, the alleged victim states that she did not believe that the Defendant would carry out such a threat because she knows him and she knows he is not the type of person to do such a thing. She further states that she would like to have contact with him because they were practically engaged and their relationship was not the type of thing to just throw away.

Attorney Noonan provided the Commonwealth with his discovery and the evidence he intended to introduce at trial. On the eve of trial, the Commonwealth made a proposition, which the Defendant refused. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth made another proposition. The Commonwealth entered a Nolle Prosequi on the Assault & Battery and Disorderly Conduct. The Commonwealth amended the felony Stalking to charge to a misdemeanor offense of Threats to Commit a Crime. The Commonwealth recommended Guilty findings on Resisting Arrest and Threats to Commit a Crime. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the Judge to continue the two charges without a finding and upon the Defendant’s successful completion of probation the two charges will be dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to Nolle Pross the Assault & Battery charge and the Disorderly Conduct. Attorney Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to amend the felony Stalking charge to a misdemeanor offense of Threats to Commit a Crime. Attorney Noonan assured that the Stalking charge would not appear on his client’s record. Even though the Commonwealth recommended Guilty findings on the remaining charges of Resisting Arrest and Threats to Commit a Crime, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge to continue them without a finding. The client will not have any felonies on his record. If he complies with probation, he will get dismissals on the two misdemeanor offenses.

KEEPING NOISY & DISORDERLY HOME: DISMISSED ON 05/16/16

Client, a 23-year-old senior college student, was charged with Keeping a Noisy and Disorderly Home in connection with an off-campus party in which more than 200 students attended. Police received noise complaints due to the loud noise from the party – as there was a DJ blasting music in the backyard. When police arrived, they observed a female dancing on the roof of the garage. Many of the party-goers were yelling for her to “jump.” Seconds later, a male student pushed the female off the roof and into the crowd. Police arrested the man who pushed the female off the roof. The incident of the male pushing the female student off the roof was captured on film. The case involving the male student pushing the female off the roof received a lot of publicity.
Our client was one of three college students that were named on the lease. My client had no criminal record. He was a standout wrestler in high school and college. He is expected to graduate with a degree in Physical Education and Coaching. Our client had never been arrested and never been involved with any problems in school. After the incident, he made plans to move out of the house to avoid any potential issues arising in the future.

Result: At a clerk’s hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police prosecutor and the clerk-magistrate to hold the case open until his client graduates in the spring. Client does not have any criminal and will continue to have no criminal record, so long as he stays out of trouble until the spring. Client intends to become a wrestling coach.

Video shows man shoving woman off roof at Bridgewater party. Pix11.com, by Jeremy Tanner, September 1, 2015. Excerpt: BRIDGEWATER, Mass. – Cellphones came out when a woman climbed onto a roof at a party Sunday night in Bridgeport, Massachusetts — and now prosecutors are using that footage after a man allegedly pushed the woman off as cameras recorded.

Read More About This Case in the News

CARRYING FIREARM while INTOX.: DISMISSED at CLERK’S HEARING

Police were dispatched to the Mandarin Restaurant for a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, police approached the Defendant in the parking lot with his girlfriend. Police observed that the Defendant and his girlfriend were intoxicated. Police learned that Defendant’s girlfriend had an altercation with Defendant’s ex-girlfriend inside the restaurant and they were asked to leave. Officers allowed the Defendant to retrieve his personal belongings from his vehicle because a friend was on his way to pick the Defendant and his girlfriend. Police observed a leather jacket in his vehicle with a “Devil’s Disciples” patch on the back along a 1% patch and German Swastikas. Police observed a holster affixed to his belt on the small of his back with a clip. The firearm was identified as a Smith & Wesson SW40VE 40. caliber semi-automatic pistol with a magazine containing 13 jacketed hollow point rounds with one round loaded in the chamber. Police located another firearm on the Defendant’s right hip identified as a Smith & Wesson SW9VE 9 mm. semi-automatic pistol with a magazine containing 9 jacketed hollow point rounds and one round loaded in the chamber. Defendant also had five knifes on his person. Defendant had a valid license to carry firearms with no restrictions. Police placed the Defendant in protective custody and subsequently charged him with Carrying a Firearm while Intoxicated. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, on the first court appearance, argued a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the Defendant was denied his statutory right to a clerk-magistrate’s hearing. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant was not entitled to a clerk’s hearing because he posed an imminent threat to the public based upon the nature of the charge, the fact that the firearms were fully loaded with rounds in the chamber, and because he was affiliated with a motorcycle gang. Attorney Noonan convinced the judge that the Defendant did not pose an imminent threat because: he had a constitutional right to carry his firearms, the offense was a non-violent misdemeanor, defendant was cooperative and compliant, defendant did not engage in any violent or threatening behavior, and he was not involved in the domestic disturbance. Attorney Noonan argued that the police unfairly profiled him upon learning that he was associated with a biker gang. Upon learning that he was affiliated with a biker gang, police placed him in protective custody (alleging that he was intoxicated) when they initially allowed him to leave the scene upon being picked up by his friend. Had the Defendant not been affiliated with a biker gang, police would have allowed him to leave the scene with his firearms.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed. Subsequently, Police requested a clerk-magistrate’s hearing. At the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the clerk-magistrate not to issue the criminal complaint but to keep the matter on file for three-months after which time the criminal complaint will be dismissed, so long as the Defendant does not commit any new crimes.

FIREARM SUSPENSION: LICENSE TO CARRY REINSTATED

Client had a valid license to carry firearms (LTC). The chief of police suspended his LTC pursuant to G.L. c. 140, § 131 because he was arrested and charged with a felony sex offense. As a result of his arrest, client was required to surrender all his firearms to the police department. After successfully resolving his criminal case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan petitioned the chief of police to reinstate his client’s LTC and return his firearms.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces chief of police to reinstate his client’s LTC and his firearms were returned.

FIREARM SUSPENSION: LICENSE TO CARRY REINSTATED

Client had a valid license to carry firearms (LTC). The chief of police suspended his LTC pursuant to G.L. c. 140, § 131 because he was arrested and charged with a felony sex offense. As a result of his arrest, client was required to surrender all his firearms to the police department. After successfully resolving his criminal case, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan petitioned the chief of police to reinstate his client’s LTC and return his firearms.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinces chief of police to reinstate his client’s LTC and his firearms were returned.