Articles Posted in Theft Crimes

Published on:

forced-entry-657836-m.jpgNorman Miller of the MetroWest Daily News wrote an article recently regarding a string of burglaries in the Metro West area. A 24 year old Ashland man and a 26 year old Marlborough man are facing charges in connection to multiple alleged burglaries in Ashland, as well as homes in other towns. The defendants are alleged to have burglarized several homes in Ashland. One home in Ashland reportedly had $30,000 worth of jewelry stolen from it.

Ashland Police reportedly began their investigation of these break-ins after Wrentham Police contacted them about a burglary allegedly involving one of the defendants. Police reportedly executed a search of that defendant’s home on Tuesday, July 30th.

Ashland Police have reportedly connected the two defendants to break-ins in Southborough, Shrewsbury, and Wrentham. The burglaries allegedly happened during the day. The defendants allegedly knocked on the front door; then, if no one answered, they would break in trough a back door.

All of the towns that have had break ins are reportedly still investigating the incidents and are also reportedly visiting pawn shops in the area to attempt to locate some of the stolen goods.

Police have issued the two defendants summonses to appear at Framingham District Court. They will likely be charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. In Massachusetts, breaking and entering is charged as either “with intent to commit a felony” or “with intent to commit a misdemeanor.” Because the value of the goods that were allegedly stolen was so large, it will likely be charged as “with intent to commit a felony.” Additionally, the men will likely face felony larceny charges.

The defendants are facing serious, felony charges that could result in prison time. It is not clear at this time what evidence the police have against the defendants though. An experienced and skill Massachusetts criminal defense attorney may be able to advocate on behalf of one or both of the men and achieve a favorable outcome for them. However, it is not certain at this time how much evidence and from what towns may come to light against them.

To prevail on the charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, the prosecutors will have to prove that the men broke into a building, that they then entered the building, and that they did so with the intent to commit a felony. The crime is punishable by up to ten years in prison. The sentence can be longer if a weapon was used during the commission of this crime or if the person broke into the building at night.

Continue reading →

Published on:

klcc-1-833930-m.jpgAccording to a recent article by Norman Miller at the MetroWest Daily News, a 32 year old Framingham woman is facing charges after allegedly taking three teenagers, including two of her children, shoplifting with her at the Natick Mall on Friday, July 26th. The defendant also reportedly had a 3-year old and 1-year old child with her in a stroller.

The defendant was arrested Friday at approximately 6:00 p.m. after store security at J.C. Penney allegedly caught her leaving the store with more than $740 worth of goods that she allegedly stole with the three teens.

Store security had reportedly been watching the defendant and the teenagers because they allegedly recognized them from a past shoplifting incident. The defendant and two teenage girls allegedly took several pieces of clothing into a dressing room and then emerged empty-handed two different times. Security personnel reportedly found price tags and empty clothes hangers in the dressing room. The teenage boy allegedly took several pairs of earrings and put them in his pocket.

After the woman and girls left the dressing room the second time, the group reportedly left, but security stopped them. The goods were allegedly found in the stroller that the group was using for the children.

The defendant is charged with three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a child, larceny of property worth more than $250, and conspiracy to commit a crime. She was arraigned at Framingham District Court on Tuesday, July 30th. She was released without bail and is due in court on September 17th for a pretrial conference. The three teenagers will be summoned to Framingham Juvenile Court and charged with larceny of property worth more than $250 and conspiracy to commit a crime.

The defendant is facing serious charges, including a felony charge. If she were indicted and tried in the superior court she could be facing up to 5 years in prison and significant fines. If convicted, these charges will have lasting repercussions and affect her life for a long time to come. In order to prevail on the misdemeanor charge of contributing to the delinquency of a child, prosecutors will have to prove that she knowingly or wilfully encouraged, aided, or contributed to a child under the age of 16 to violate a law. To prevail on the larceny charge, prosecutors will have to prove that the defendant took and carried away property that was owned by someone else and that she did so with the intent to deprive that person of the property permanently.

The teenagers are also facing serious charges, including a felony. Being convicted of a felony at such a young age can affect a person’s life well into the future and impact his or her ability to fulfill aspirations of college and career success.

Continue reading →

Published on:

812057_savannah_door.jpgPolice in Weston arrested four teenagers from Ashland on the night of Thursday, July 11th for an alleged scam, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. Police allege that a resident called the police around 5:30 p.m. after two teenagers came to his house and attempted to sell him raffle tickets in an effort to raise money for the cross-country team at Weston High School. The resident was allegedly suspicious of the teenagers when they were unable to answer his questions.

The teens reportedly had raffle tickets that they were selling for $5 each or three for $10, as well as a flier with the town seal detailing the fundraising campaign. The resident who called police reportedly bought three tickets as a way to have proof for the officers who arrived at his house. The teens then reportedly returned to his house and refunded his money before fleeing. The resident was reportedly able to provide a detailed description of the teens, as well as the license plate of the car.
Police reportedly located the teens, as well as two other teenagers, who all allegedly confessed upon being questioned by police. Police also reportedly found a roll of raffle tickets and homemade fliers for various schools in a car that belonged to one of the teenagers.

The four teens have reportedly been charged with larceny by false pretense. The teens were arraigned at Waltham District Court on Friday, July 12th and were released on personal recognizance.

In order to prove larceny by false pretense, prosecutors will have to prove the following things: the teens knowingly lied or made a false representation; the teens lied hoping that the person he or she was lying to would believe the lie; the victim to whom the teens lied actually believed the lie; the victim gave away his or her property because they believed the lie.

In this case, the alleged victim reportedly told police that he was suspicious of the teenagers when they were at his door asking for money. If he did not believe the teens’ story, but instead played along to try to get proof that the teens were lying, the prosecution may have a hard time proving an element of the crime–that the person to whom the statement was made relied on the teens’ statement as true. In other words, the victim had to believe the lie under the law, and the alleged victim in this case seems to say that he did not believe the teenagers. Although proving this actual charge may be difficult, a savvy prosecutor will revise these charges or bring new charges against the teens for attempt to commit larceny by false pretenses. When a person is charged with attempt to commit a crime a prosecutors must only prove that the defendant engaged in some overt act toward completion of the crime.

The teens are facing a possible punishment of up to one year in jail and a fine if convicted of the charges they currently face.

Continue reading →

Published on:

676972_car_theft.jpgA 35 year old man from Asland, was arrested on Wednesday, April 17th for allegedly stealing a lighter and some change from a car that was parked in a Shaw’s parking lot, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. Officers reportedly arrived at the Shaw’s parking lot in the Pond Street Plaza before noon for a report of a fight. Upon arrival, officers allegedly witnessed several men fighting with the defendant, who was being held by two other men. The men then reportedly told officers that they had witnessed the defendant going into multiple cars in the parking lot, including a Ford pickup truck belonging to one of the men. The men reportedly also stated that when they approached the defendant, he fled across the street, and they caught him and brought him back to the Shaw’s parking lot. The owner of the truck reportedly claimed a white cigarette lighter and some loose change from the center console was missing after the incident. An officer then allegedly frisked the defendant and found the missing items on him.

The defendant was reportedly arrested and charged with breaking and entering a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor, and larceny under $250, also a misdemeanor. He was released without bail on Thursday at Framingham District Court. The defendant was ordered to return to court for a pretrial conference on June 14.

The defendant is facing two misdemeanor charges. Many people may assume that misdemeanor charges will not lead to severe penalties like a felony can. However, the defendant may still be facing serious penalties, particularly if he has a record with other charges or convictions in it. If he has a record with other offenses on it, his punishment for this offense may be more severe than if this is his first time being charged with a crime. That being said, the defendant can still have a favorable outcome in this case and may avoid jail time. The amount of money and goods taken in this case was relatively minor, which is helpful to him.

The defendant may come away from this situation with only minor penalties if he has an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney on his side. In this case, the crimes are economic crimes, rather than violent crimes. Courts can be convinced to look more favorably on defendants who are committing non-violent crimes motivated by economic need if the arguments are framed in a sincere manner and the defendant is determined to refrain from committing further crimes. Additionally, a skilled attorney may be able to help the defendant win his case altogether and clear his name of any wrongdoing. Either way, he is in need of an experienced criminal defender who will fight to protect his liberty.

Continue reading →

Published on:

A 24-year-old Natick man was charged Monday with multiple counts of breaking and entering in the daytime and larceny from a building in Framingham District Court, MetroWest Daily News reported.

Police arrested the man after a Natick officer, off-duty at the time, allegedly saw him depositing a large amount of change into a coin machine at a local grocery store. The officer took notice of this because police had been investigating a recent break-in, one in a series, during which $700-$900 in change had been stolen from the residence. Police allege that the man also took jewelry, cash, prescription drugs, and a baby stroller from the same residence. He allegedly used the stroller to wheel the coins to the grocery store. The prosecution alleges that the man confessed to the break-ins, admitting that he bought cocaine and heroin with the money.

Based on the reported facts, the man might have some solid grounds for motions to suppress both the evidence and statements. It seems that police seized the man based on his possession of a large quantity of coins. A seizure is illegal unless police have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. There is nothing criminal about depositing a large amount of change into a coin machine. There is no indication that the man was known to police or that he matched any description of a suspect. There is no indication that the officer recognized the stroller used to transport the coins. Simply having money, even an unusually large amount of it, without more is not enough to support a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

If the initial seizure of the man was illegal, then his alleged statements admitting to the break-ins might be so-called “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule, direct and indirect products of an illegal search or seizure must be suppressed from use. The reasoning is essentially that the first illegality taints that which comes next. It applies to verbal evidence as well as physical evidence. Here, if police illegally seized the man based on nothing more than his possession of the coins, the man might argue that subsequent statements were tainted by that initial illegality.

This story illustrates the importance of speaking with an experienced criminal defense lawyer before giving any statements to police. The government claims that the coins and stroller link the man to one particular break-in. There is no apparent connection, apart from his alleged statement to police, between the man and the other six break-ins, and there might not have been probable cause to charge him in connection with them had he not allegedly confessed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

403_dutch_weed.jpgThree men were charged with larceny from a person, conspiracy to violate drug laws, and possession of more than an ounce of marijuana on February 3rd, according to the MetroWest Daily News.  Two of the men are both reportedly from Rhode Island. The third is reportedly from Framingham. Police allege that the men traveled to Marlborough to purchase $2,000 worth of marijuana, but robbed their dealers instead.

Police were allegedly responding to a report of a domestic disturbance on Beach Street in Marlborough when a man and a woman flagged an officer down. The woman allegedly told the officer that a man had stolen her purse and run away with two other men toward Williams Street. Officers reportedly followed footprints in the snow to find the men in the Holiday Inn parking lot on Lakeside Avenue.

Police allege that one of the men that was arrested matched the description given to them by the woman whose purse was allegedly stolen. Police also allegedly found two pounds of marijuana and an air pistol on or near that individual.

The man matching the description then reportedly admitted to the police that he and the other two individuals had driven to Marlborough for the purpose of conducting a drug deal. The man allegedly stated that the three of them had made an agreement with the alleged drug dealers in which the men would pay the dealers $2,000 for the marijuana. However, the man allegedly stated that he did not have the money and had no intention of paying for the marijuana. He allegedly said he grabbed a paper bag containing the marijuana from the woman and ran away. The man allegedly contended that the air pistol police reportedly found on him had been tucked into the front of his pants and had not been shown during the alleged robbery.

All three men were reportedly released on personal recognizance at their arraignment in Marlborough District Court on February 4th.

The man and woman who flagged down police had not been charged when police released arrest logs Monday morning.

In order to prevail on the larceny from a person charge, prosecutors will have to prove that each of the men took property that was owned by someone other than him and that he intended to deprive that person of the property permanently. To prove the conspiracy to violate drug laws, the prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the three men joined in an agreement or plan, the purpose of which was to violate Massachusetts drug laws, and that each of the men knew the plan was unlawful and intended to help carry it out. Finally, to prove the charge of possession of more than an ounce of marijuana, prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the men possessed marijuana in an amount greater than one ounce. The other two men may have a defense against the possession charge since the marijuana was found on or near the first man. However, it is also possible for the charge to be proven against them despite the marijuana being in a companion’s possession. The three men are facing serious charges and could face the punishment of incarceration in prison or a house of corrections.

Continue reading →

Published on:

1384588_brown_envelope_money_bribe_1.jpgA 52 year old Chelsea man has been ordered held on $25,000 bail for charges of trying to extort $150,000 from a Framingham man, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. On Tuesday, January 8th, the defendant pleaded not guilty to charges of extortion, threatening to commit a crime, and making harassing phone calls.

The defendant reportedly told the alleged victim that the alleged victim owed him money due to a land deal involving the alleged victim’s father in Brazil. The defendant and several of his friends reportedly began calling the alleged victim in 2011, demanding money. The defendant also allegedly created a website, claiming that the alleged victim was a criminal and was wanted for murder in Brazil.

The alleged victim reportedly paid the defendant $3,000 in January 2012 out of fear. The defendant reportedly began calling the alleged victim again, demanding $150,000. The defendant reportedly told the alleged victim that he had contacts in Brazil who would kill the alleged victim’s family and also that he would kill the alleged victim and his family.  If the defendant posts bail, he has been ordered to surrender his passport and not to contact the alleged victim and/or his family.

Under Massachusetts law, Extortion is defined as the malicious threat to accuse another of a crime; or any person of authority unlawfully using his powers, with intent to extort money or any pecuniary advantage, or with intent to compel any person to do any act against his will. To prevail on the extortion charges, prosecutors will have to prove that the defendant engaged in written, verbal, or printed communication; that the communication constituted a threat; that the threatening communication was undertaken maliciously; that the threat was to accuse another person of a crime or offense, or to do injury to the person or property of another; and that the threat was undertaken with the intent to extort money or other pecuniary advantage, or to compel another to do an act against his or her will. The prosecutors in this case have many elements to prove to prevail on their charge of extortion against the defendant.

If the defendant is convicted of these charges, he will be facing up to fifteen years in prison or up to two and a half years in a house of correction, or a fine of up to five thousand dollars, or both.

To prove that the defendant made threats against the alleged victim, prosecutors will have to prove that he had the intention and ability to commit a crime, which would justify the alleged victim’s fear. If the defendant is convicted of threatening to commit a crime, he is facing fines and possible jail time.

Finally, to prevail on the harassment charges, prosecutors will have to prove that the defendant engaged in a pattern, or committed a series of harassing acts over time. If convicted of harassment, the defendant is facing up to two and a half years of incarceration, as well as fines.

Anyone facing such serious charges needs a serious and committed Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer.

Continue reading →

Published on:

754431_in_business.jpgAccording to a recent article in the MetroWest Daily news, a Marlborough resident was ordered held on $20,000 bail in Marlborough District Court Thursday, December 20th. The man was arraigned after police said he stole more than $5,000 in checks from his girlfriend’s parents. The man has been charged with two counts of uttering a false check and two counts of larceny by check over $250.

The alleged victims – the parents of the man’s girlfriend – reportedly contacted police on Wednesday and said that the man had stolen checks from them and had tried to cash one of them at St. Mary’s Credit Union earlier in the day.

The alleged victims reportedly told police that they were contacted by a branch manager. The branch manager allegedly told them that the man had tried to cash the check but could not do so because there were insufficient funds in the account. Officers reportedly stopped a car in which the man was riding and arrested him Thursday.

Police allege that over the previous month, the man had drained the account. The man allegedly had written himself twelve checks for a total of $5,551.

The alleged victims reportedly positively identified the man in a surveillance video. The man was also allegedly seen passing checks and receiving cash on December 5th and December 18th.

Investigators are reportedly working with the bank to get surveillance footage from other times when the man was believed to have passed false checks. The man is facing serious charges, including larceny over $250, which is a felony in Massachusetts.

To prevail on the charge of uttering requires that the Commonwealth prove that whoever passed the document knew it was false. However, in Massachusetts, courts may consider a bounced check to be prima facie evidence that the person who passed the check intended to defraud, unless the person deposits enough money to cover the check within 48 hours of being notified by the bank that the check has passed. In other words, simply passing a false check and not depositing money to cover the debt can be evidence that you knew there were insufficient funds in the account and were deliberately trying to defraud the bank. Therefore, the man needs a skilled attorney that can fight these charges and the presumption that he was intending to defraud by allegedly passing the checks.

If convicted of these charges, the man is facing serious penalties. Larceny of property valued at $250 or more is a serious offense in Massachusetts, punishable by up to five years in prison. Larceny of property worth less than $250 is punishable by up to one year in prison. These charges can have a serious impact on his future if he is convicted. A felony conviction can impact a person’s ability to secure employment, own a firearm, or have custody of his or her children.

Continue reading →

Published on:

735712_box.jpgA Natick woman has been charged with stealing packages off of two residents’ doorsteps, according to an article in the MetroWest Daily News. The woman pleaded not guilty to the charges in Framingham District Court on Thursday, December 20th. Natick police reportedly arrested her at 11:54 a.m. Thursday morning at her home.

A local resident reportedly said he saw a woman, later allegedly identified as the defendant, grab a package that was on his front porch and walk back to her car. He told police he confronted her and wrote down her license plate and called police after she left with his package.

Police reportedly spoke to the woman at her home, at which time she denied any knowledge to what police were referring. Police allegedly found another package in her car with another name on it. Police allege that they could smell a strange burning odor and saw a very large fire in the woman’s fireplace. Police allege that the item she had stolen off the resident’s porch that day was burned in the fireplace.

One of the items allegedly stolen by the woman was a dry erase board worth about $50. It is unknown what the other item is and its value because the victim reportedly ordered several things online and has to wait until after Christmas to see what was delivered.

The woman was subsequently arrested and charged with two counts of larceny of property worth less than $250 and one count of larceny of property worth more than $250. She is also charged with intimidation of a witness and burning personal property.

The woman posted $100 bail after her arrest and was released. Prosecutors did not ask for any additional bail at the arraignment on Thursday. The woman is due back in court on Feb. 11 for a pretrial conference.

The woman is facing both misdemeanor and felony charges. Larceny of property worth less than $250 is a misdemeanor. However, larceny of property worth more than $250 is a felony. The article does not say what was stolen that was worth more than $250. The police appear to be assuming that whatever property was burned was worth more than $250 since the dry erase board was only worth $50. If the property that police allegedly found burned ends up being worth less than $250, the woman will only be facing misdemeanor larceny charges. Prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was worth more than $250 to prevail on that charge so they may face tough odds on that element.

In order to prevail on the charge of burning personal property, prosecutors will have to prove that: (1) the property in question was certain personal property as defined by the law that was owned either by another; (2) the woman aided, procured, caused, or set fire to or burned the property; (3) the woman did so wilfully; and (4) the the woman did so maliciously.

If convicted of any of these charges, the woman could be facing jail time, probation, or fines. The woman needs an experienced attorney to help her overcome these charges. She may overcome the felony larceny charge if the burned property allegedly found in her home was worth less than $250. Additionally, if the property was burned as police stated, she may be able to argue that they could not identify the property as belonging to the resident who called police.

Continue reading →

Published on:

67770_shopping_cart.jpgA recent article in the MetroWest Daily News tells the story of a Bellingham man who was charged with larceny of property over $250 and disorderly conduct on Wednesday, December 12th following a chase through Wegmans and onto Shops way at about 5 p.m. The man allegedly attempted to steal $400 in baby formula. Store security employees allegedly saw the man load several small empty plastic bags from the produce section into his cart, then stuff 22 containers of baby formula into the empty bags. Employees reportedly believed the man was trying to make it look like he had already paid for the items. Store security allegedly alerted the police who came to Wegmans.

Police reportedly waited in their cruisers outside of the store. When the man got close to the exit, police reportedly saw him quickly turn and walk back into the store, leaving his cart behind. Officers then reportedly followed the man into the store. When the police identified themselves as officers, the  man allegedly ran from them. The officers reportedly chased him through the store and outside for a few hundred yards after the man allegedly ran out the emergency exit. Officers finally caught the man and he was arraigned at Westborough District Court on Thursday, December 13th.

The man has been charged with larceny over $250, which is a felony in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Grand larceny, or larceny of over $250, is punishable by up to five years in state prison, a fine of up to $25,000, or imprisonment in jail for up to two years. In order to prevail on the charge, prosecutors will have to prove that the man did steal, take, and carry away the property of another, that the property had a value of more than $250, and that the man specifically intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

There are a number of defenses that can be used when facing a larceny charge. One of the common defenses is to try to get the felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor charge by fighting the alleged amount of the property. Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was valued at $250 or more. Therefore, it is often possible to get the charged reduced to petty theft, or larceny under $250.

In this case, the man may be able to argue that he never left the store with the property. Prosecutors may face difficulty with proving the first requirement–that he did steal, take, and carry away the property of another. If the man argues this point, prosecutors may have a hard time proving that this element beyond a reasonable doubt. He could also argue against the identification by store employees or police.

Continue reading →