Commonwealth v. M.R. – Brockton Superior Court

DRUG DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL ZONE: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, 27 year-old male, was indicted on Distribution of Class B Substance (subsequent offense) and Distribution of Class B Substance in a School Zone. A Brockton Detective was conducting an undercover drug sting operation in which he arranged to purchase drugs from the Defendant. The Detective testified that he arranged to purchase two forties of hard crack cocaine from the Defendant. The Detective testified that the Defendant distributed the crack cocaine to the undercover officer within 300 feet of the Huntington School on Warren Avenue. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss under Commonwealth v. McCarthy arguing that there was insufficient probable cause presented to the Grand Jury that the drug transaction occurred within 300 feet of a school zone. The Superior Court Judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion and the School Zone Indictment was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and saves his client from a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 2 ½ years.

Commonwealth v. J.G. – Stoughton District Court

CARRYING FIREARM without LICENSE: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Police searched the Defendant’s home and found a Smith & Wesson 28 Special Revolver loaded with four rounds of ammunition. Defendant did not have any license to possess or carry firearms. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there is a “residency exemption” in the amended statute, which applies to those possessing a firearm while “present in or on his residence.” Citing case law, Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence showed that the Defendant possessed the firearm in his residence, which is not a crime, even though he did not have any gun license.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and he saves his client from serving a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 18 months.

Commonwealth v. R.M. – Brockton District Court

LARCENCY BY FALSE PRETENSE OVER $250: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was alleged to have defrauded three local businesses by selling them false advertising space in a newspaper publication. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the victim-businesses did not “part with their personal property,” which is a legal element needed to support the charge.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and felony charge is dismissed outright. “Plymouth man charged with falsely representing college.”

Commonwealth v. A.S. – Wareham District Court

POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED upon MOTION
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was alleged to have possessed Heroin and Oxycodone with the intent to distribute the illicit drugs. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence of an intent to distribute the drugs, as the Defendant did not possess any accoutrements or tools of the drug trade. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence was more consistent with personal use, as opposed to distribution.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and both felony drug offenses are dismissed outright.

Commonwealth v. D.R. – Stoughton District Court

POSSESSION with INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED after HEARING

Stoughton Police were conducting undercover surveillance of a home known for firearms violations, drug violations, and overdoses. Stoughton Police followed a vehicle leaving the driveway of the residence. The vehicle pulled into the parking lot of a Gulf Gas Station. Stoughton Police set up a surveillance post across the street from the gas station. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant walk over to the vehicle that had been tailed by the Stoughton Police. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant walk over to the passenger side of the vehicle and engage in a hand-to-hand transaction. After observing the alleged drug transaction, Stoughton Police stopped the Defendant and conducted a pat-down frisk and recovered a plastic baggie containing 12 pills believed to be Oxycodone. After an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, Gerald J. Noonan and Patrick J. Noonan established that Stoughton Police did not have the reasonable suspicion necessary to stop the Defendant and conduct a pat-down frisk of his person. The court ruled that the stop and frisk of the Defendant was unconstitutional and suppressed all evidence, including incriminating statements made by the Defendant and all physical evidence found on his person (the Oxycodone pills).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony drug charge dismissed outright for constitutional violations.

Commonwealth v. K.L. – Brockton District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, with no criminal record, was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (felony) stemming from a verbal altercation with two women during which he struck both victims with an apartment door. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the felony count arguing that the apartment door did not constitute a dangerous weapon based upon comparative case law. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not use the apartment door in such a way as to constitute a dangerous weapon.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed resulting in the dismissal of the felony charge.

Commonwealth v. John Doe – Hingham Juvenile Court

BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, a juvenile, was charged with Breaking and Entering with the Intent to Commit a Felony stemming from an incident in which he allegedly smashed the window of a vacant building an entered with another youth. Through a Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the juvenile did not have the requisite intent to a commit a felony therein at the time of the breaking and entering. Rather, the juvenile’s intent was to commit the misdemeanor offense of Trespassing at the time of the Breaking & Entering.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets aggravated Felony B & E charge dismissed and amended down to Misdemeanor B & E charge.

Commonwealth v. R.R. – Dedham District Court

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: DISMISSED upon MOTION
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was traveling on a secluded country road when he lost control of his pickup truck and crashed into a stone wall. Defendant admitted to drinking six Heineken beers at a bar and he failed all field sobriety tests. In pretrial proceedings, Attorney Noonan obtained a court-order for the prosecution to provide him with the booking video of his arrest and his color booking photo. The first time the case was scheduled for trial, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss because the prosecution did not provide him with the booking video or booking photo. The judge continued the trial to give the prosecution another opportunity to provide defense counsel with the discovery. Attorney Noonan subpoenaed the officer responsible for maintaining the booking videos and booking photos to appear at trial. At the second trial date, the prosecution did not provide the discovery to the Defendant. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the criminal complaints must be dismissed because the Commonwealth lost or destroyed exculpatory evidence by willfully disobeying court orders and dodging the subpoena.

Result: Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and all charges were dismissed outright by the judge.

Commonwealth v. R.C. – Commonwealth v. M.C. – Taunton District Court

LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED
LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED

Clients owned and operated a sporting goods store and purchased merchandise from a vendor in the amount of $9,626.65. Clients wrote several checks to pay the balance. All checks were returned for insufficient funds and the balance was never paid. As a result, the clients were charged with Larceny by Check. Patrick J. Noonan (then a third-year law student) filed a Motion to Dismiss (which was denied) on venue grounds, as the events alleged to have occurred did not take place “in the vicinity” of Bristol County but in Plymouth County. See Commonwealth v. Adelson, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 585 (1996)(discussing factors in determining vicinity in larceny by check case). Patrick J. Noonan then drafted a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the criminal court was an improper venue to settle the dispute, as the alleged victim had an adequate remedy to recover the monies owed in a civil action and failed to do so. See Taylor v. Newton Div. of the District Court Dep’t, 416 Mass. 1006 (1993)(noting that the petitioner, who was not permitted to file applications for criminal complaint, “had a right to proceed in a civil action.”). In addition, Patrick J. Noonan argued in the Motion to Dismiss that it was an abuse of process for someone to use the criminal process to collect a civil debt. See Carroll v. Gillespie, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 12 (1982)(defendant sought to use the criminal process to collect a civil debt). Lastly, Patrick J. Noonan argued in the Motion to Dismiss that the Defendants’ did not have the intent to permanently deprive the alleged victim of the money, as they filed for bankruptcy shortly thereafter and were discharged from all debts.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and all criminal charges were dismissed against his clients.

Commonwealth v. John Doe – Dedham Juvenile Court

ASSAULT with INTENT TO RAPE: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to Middle-High School to speak with the Assistant Principal with regards to allegations of sexual assault in which six students reported to the Principal that the Defendant (eighth greater) had been touching and grabbing their butts and making sexual comments to them. This was described as a pattern of sexual harassment that had taken place over the period of months. One of the alleged victim-students told the Principal that the Defendant tried to put his hand in her pants. The alleged victim later told police that the Defendant exposed his penis and said, “I want to fuck you” and had touched her breasts on occasion. One witness provided a statement that the Defendant had the alleged victim on the floor of the locker room and was humping her and fingering her. The alleged victim resisted, tried to push him off, and she couldn’t breathe. The Defendant was charged with Assault with Intent to Rape and two counts of Indecent Assault and Battery. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed and argued a Motion to Dismiss the Assault with Intent to Rape charge on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support that charge based upon all the discovery that the Commonwealth provided and the evidence that the Commonwealth intended to present at trial. The judge agreed and dismissed the criminal complaint charging the Defendant with Assault with Intent to Rape. The Commonwealth was forced to proceed on the remaining two counts of Indecent Assault and Battery.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Assault with Intent to Rape charge dismissed against juvenile. “School assault prompts probe.”

Motions to Dismiss