Crimes Against Property
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Brockton District Court
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY CHARGES DISMISSED DESPITE VIDEO EVIDENCE SHOWING THE DEFENDANT SMASHING THE PROPERTY.
The client was a longtime employee of a paving company. After many years of service, his employer informed the Defendant that he would no longer be employed for the company. Upset at his termination, Defendant went out into the parking lot and smashed the front windshield of a company work-truck. Surveillance video captured the Defendant smashing the windshield. Defendant was charged with the felony offense of Malicious Destruction of Property over $1,200 pursuant to G.L. c. 266, §127. Defendant hired Attorney Gerald J. Noonan. This was a losing case because the Defendant was captured on video committing the crime. Although the employer was very upset by the property damage, Attorney Noonan was able to secure an agreement wherein the criminal charge would be dismissed upon the payment of restitution. In particular, the parties executed an Accord and Satisfaction Agreement where, in exchange for payment of the property damage, the criminal offense would be dismissed.
Commonwealth v. M.D. – Brockton District Court
DESPITE DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION TO STEALING $8,000 FROM HIS EMPLOYER, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS LARCENY CASE DISMISSED AT TRIAL.
Defendant, a Brockton man, worked for a business in Brockton. An investigator for the company found that the Defendant was stealing from the business in excess of $8,000. The investigator gathered all records and documents showing the Defendant’s thefts from the business. The investigator provided the police with all the documents detailing the employee theft. At the police station, Defendant admitted that he stole the money. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was successful in getting the Defendant’s confession suppressed after proving that the police officer did not read the Defendant his Miranda rights. The District Attorney’s Office still had enough evidence to prosecute the Defendant for the crime of Larceny over $250 (G.L. c. 265, §30).
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Noonan was prepared to move the Court to exclude from evidence the documents from the investigator, which purportedly showed the Defendant’s thefts from the business on the grounds that the documents were not admissible as business records. Attorney Noonan was prepared to present evidence that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove all the essential elements of a Larceny beyond a reasonable doubt. On the first trial date, the investigator appeared in court and was ready to testify but the trial was continued due to court congestion. On the second trial date, the Commonwealth got the trial continued, over the objection of the defense, because a witness was on vacation. On the third trial date, the trial got continued due to court congestion. On the fourth trial date, the investigator did not appear because he had a job training that day. Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, as the Commonwealth was not ready for trial.
Commonwealth v. B.F. – Quincy District Court
CLIENT WHO CRASHED HIS CAR INTO A DITCH AND FLED THE SCENE BECAUSE HE HAD A REVOKED DRIVER’S LICENSE WILL HAVE ALL CHARGES DISMISSED AFTER 4 MONTHS SO LONG AS HE STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE AND PROVIDES PROOF THAT HIS DRIVER’S LICENSE IS REINSTATED.
Holbrook Police responded to a call for a motor vehicle in a ditch. When the police arrived, they could not locate the operator or any other occupants who may have been in the vehicle. Police located the vehicle’s registration showing that it was registered to the Defendant’s wife. Police located the wife and had her come to the police station for questioning. The wife told police that her husband, Defendant, had crashed the vehicle and fled the scene because he did not have a driver’s license. Defendant was charged with Operating with a Revoke Driver’s License, and Leaving the Scene of Property Damage.
Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his client has taken the steps to clear up his suspended driver’s license. The client owed money to the DMV in North Carolina and Attorney Noonan presented proof that his client paid his fees in full. Client owed money to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Child Support and Attorney Noonan presented proof that the client paid his child support debts. Lastly, Attorney Noonan presented some evidence to show that his client completed classes that were ordered by the court in North Carolina for a previous driving related offense. The Clerk Magistrate agreed to dismiss the complaints after four months so long as the client stays out of trouble and provides the clerk with proof that his driver’s license is reinstated.
Commonwealth v. S.M. – Brockton District Court
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST 41 YEAR-OLD STATE EMPLOYEE WITH NO CRIMINAL RECORD FOR LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT WHILE CAUSING PROPERTY DAMAGE WILL BE DISMISSED OUTRIGHT IN ONE-YEAR SO LONG AS THE CLIENT STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE.
The Client was a 41-year-old state employee of Massachusetts who worked for the Department of Transportation and the Department of Children and Families and she had no criminal record. The Police Report states: A civilian witness reported that he was stopped in bumper-to-bumper traffic in Whitman when he was rear-ended by another vehicle. After the accident, the witness attempted to exchange information with the other driver, the Defendant, who refused to provide any information and then fled the scene in her vehicle. The other driver took a picture of the Defendant’s license plate and reported it to police. Police went to the Defendant’s home and observed damage to her vehicle. Defendant admitted that she was the driver and that she was in an accident. She stated that she thought she had exchanged her information but didn’t think the accident was her fault. The officer told her that she was the cause of the accident because she was following the other vehicle too closely. The Defendant became agitated and told the officer to leave her property.
Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented written statements of two witnesses, who were passengers in the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of this incident. Witness #1 stated that the other driver jumped out of his car and shoved the witness. The other driver became confrontational as Witness #1 took photos of the other driver’s vehicle, which did not appear to have any real damage. The other driver stated that he was going to call the police. The defendant and her party remained at the scene but the police never arrived so they left. Witness #2 confirmed that the other jumped out of his car and shoved Witness #1. Witness #2 stated that they waited at the scene for 30 minutes but the police never came. Witness #2 was recovering from recent heart surgery and requested that the Defendant take her home because she was shaken up by the event and wasn’t feeling well. The Defendant is a 41 year-old state employee who worked for the Mass. Department of Transportation and the Department of Children and Families. She had no criminal record. The issuance of the criminal complaint would have affected the Defendant’s employment with the State. After hearing, the Clerk-Magistrate decided to keep the criminal charge of Leaving the Scene of Property Damage open for one-year to be dismissed after that time so long as the Defendant stays out of trouble. The Defendant was ordered to pay $80 in fines.
Commonwealth v. M.S. – Brockton District Court
DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF 2 OUT OF 4 FELONIES FOR CAUSING MALICIOUS DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ON 4 SEPARATE OCCASIONS, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE VICTIMS, EXCEEDED $101,000 IN DAMAGES.
Defendant, a 50-year-old resident of West Bridgewater, was charged with 4 counts of Malicious Destruction of Property over $250. Defendant worked for a company for 30 years and he was fired. After his termination, Defendant, on four separate occasions, intentionally inflicted damage to the company’s out-door industrial air chiller. The company claimed that the damage caused by the Defendant exceeded $101,000 dollars. After each act of vandalism, the company reported it to West Bridgewater Police. The company suspected that it was the Defendant who caused the damage. The company installed cameras to catch the Defendant in the act. The Defendant was caught on video causing damage to the air chiller and was arrested the following day. Prior to trial, the District Attorney’s Office offered the Defendant the following deal: Plead Guilty to all 4 felony charges of Malicious Destruction of Property over $250, be placed on probation for two years, and to pay restitution to be later determined at a hearing. Despite the evidence showing the Defendant was caught on videotape causing damage to the air chiller, and other strong evidence showing his guilt, Defendant opted to go to trial.
Result: At the trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the Commonwealth’s evidence that each act of vandalism caused at least $250 in damage even though the alleged victim’s claimed that the damage exceeded $100,000. With regards to 2 of the acts of vandalism, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to convince the jury that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the damage exceeded $250. Instead of taking the Commonwealth’s deal to plead guilty to all 4 felony counts, Defendant was acquitted and found Not Guilty of 2 of the felony counts. Attorney Noonan was weary to have his client plead guilty to all 4 counts because the company could use his admissions against him when they seek $101,000 in restitution from the Defendant. The Defendant was given a suspended sentence with probation for two years, a sentence not all that much different from what the Commonwealth was asking for prior to trial.
Commonwealth v. A.N. – Brockton District Court
FELONY DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY CHARGE AGAINST 35-YEAR-OLD COMPUTER PROGRAMMER IS DISMISSED AT CLERK MAGISTRATE’S HEARING AND NO CRIMINAL CHARGE WILL BE ON CLIENT’S RECORD.
The Police Report states: a Brockton City employee was snow plowing a residential street in Brockton when the Defendant, who was standing at the end of his driveway with a shovel, struck the City vehicle with his shovel causing $1,000 in damage to the vehicle. At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented his client’s side of the story. The Client was shoveling his driveway. The conditions were very snowy and there was poor visibility. As the client was shoveling snow at the end of his driveway, he saw a snow plow driving in his direction. The client saw that the snow plow was driving very close to the side of the street and he believed that the snow plow might drive across or into the client’s driveway. The client raised his shovel to warn the snow plow driver that he is coming too close to his driveway. As the snow plow passed by, it was very close to the client’s driveway, and as the client was holding his shovel up in the air to warn the driver, the shovel struck the side of the truck.
Result: At the Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan presented evidence that his client did not intend to damage the truck and only struck the truck with his shovel because he believed that the truck might hit him. At the hearing, the snow plow driver stated that the damage to his truck was $1,500 but Attorney Noonan argued that hitting the side of this heavy-duty truck with a shovel would not cause that much damage. Attorney Noonan convinced the Clerk Magistrate to dismiss the criminal complaint upon the client’s payment of $250 for the damage to the truck.
Commonwealth v. M.S. – Brockton District Court
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.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Taunton Juvenile Court
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED
RESISTING ARREST: DISMISSED
A homeowner called police to report that a male had just ripped off his mailbox. Upon arrival, police located the male matching the description. Upon spotting him, the male fled into the woods and police chased him. During the chase, police tackled him to the ground and the male flailed his arms striking the officer in the head and shoulder. The male broke away and continued to flee into the woods. The officer attempted to tackle him several times but the male pushed him away. Finally, the officer tackled the male to the ground and delivered two fist strikes to his head. Afterwards, police learned that the male destroyed nine mailboxes. The male, a juvenile, was charged with Malicious Destruction of Property (felony) and Resisting Arrest. The juvenile had no prior criminal record. He was a standout athlete on the football team at his high school. The juvenile met with a Marine Corp. recruiter and signed a letter of intention to enlist. If the juvenile were convicted or given of CWOF for the felony offenses, he would be disqualified from military service. Moreover, if the juvenile were placed on Pretrial Probation, he would be disqualified from military. The only disposition that would not disqualify from military serve was an outright dismissal of the charges. After much work, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan and Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth to dismiss all charges outright. Now, the client can pursue his dream of serving in the military.
Result: Charges dismissed outright and juvenile can now pursue his dream of enlisting in military.
Commonwealth v. John Doe – Plymouth Juvenile Court
TRESPASS: CWOF (9 months, admin. probation, $734.00 restitution)
VANDALISM: DISMISSED
BREAKING & ENTERING: DISMISSED
POSSESSION OF LIQUOR: DISMISSED
Plymouth Police were dispatched to a vacant residence after receiving a call that a male and female were seen walking up the driveway of the vacant home holding rocks. Police discovered 14 teenagers inside the home, including the Defendant. Police observed severe damage to the home, including trash thrown around, tagging of a red penis inside the front door, dirt in every room, pasta thrown on the kitchen floor, burned pieces of wood in the living room, a swastika painted on the bedroom wall, the words “No Jews Allowed” spray painted on the bedroom wall, testicles painted on the bedroom wall. Police arrested 14 teenagers including the Defendant. The Commonwealth estimated the damage at approximately $50,000.
Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence to charge his client as being a joint-venturer in the crimes, as the evidence merely showed that the Defendant was present at the scene of the crime and something more was required.
Commonwealth v. K.T. – Hingham District Court
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: DISMISSED
LARCENY FALSE PRETENSE: DISMISSED
Client was charged with Receiving Stolen Property over $250, a felony offense, stemming from allegations that she stole three pieces of jewelry from the alleged victim totaling approximately $5,430, including a gold Claddagh ring (valued at $100), a diamond pendant necklace with a gold necklace (valued at $130), a 14K gold diamond anniversary band ring (valued at $2,200), and a 14K gold teardrop solitaire ring (valued at $2,000-$3,000). The client then allegedly pawned the jewelry, claiming to be the rightful owner of the property, and received payment resulting in an additional charge of Larceny by False Pretense.
Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get all criminal charges dismissed outright at the second court date.