Case Results » Theft Crimes

  • Clerk Finds No Probable Cause For Felony Charge of Larceny Over $250

    After years of being divorced, a disgruntled spouse applied for a criminal application claiming that her ex improperly used a credit card issued in her name to purchase items valued over $250. See, M.G.L. chapter 266 section 30. Attorney McCarthy conducted a lengthy and thorough investigation into these claims. During the hearing she illustrated that the client paid the credit card bill and thus, lacked the specific intent to permanently deprive the complainant of anything. The clerk agreed and the client left the courthouse and the felony complaint did not issue.

    Read More in Theft Crimes

  • Not Guilty Verdict Returned On An Identify Fraud Case Against Doctor

    The Commonwealth charged the defendant, an established doctor, with Identify Fraud. [M.G.L. Ch. 266 §37E]. During the trial, the prosecutor claimed that the defendant committed Identify Fraud by posing as the victim and sending poorly written e-mails to medical residency programs in an alleged effort to interfere with the victim's opportunity to be admitted to the programs. The Commonwealth connected the defendant to the alleged email(s) through an "IP" address that listed the defendant's name as the subscriber and by claiming that the correspondences in question contained information that the complaining witness had ONLY shared with the defendant.

    Attorney McCarthy focused on the very weak forensic connection highlighting that the IP address from which the email account was set up was NOT the one associated to the defendant's name, the email header information from the actual email was not sent from the IP address connected to the defendant's name and the Commonwealth DID NOT have the actual device from which the offending emails were sent from. Additionally, McCarthy illustrated that the information contained in the emails was actually general information about the complaining witness that other people were aware of.

    A NOT GUILTY verdict was returned.

  • Client Avoids Felony Conviction Despite Previous Record

    The attention of the police was drawn to an individual that appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance. While talking to the police the individual became irrational and jumped into a car. Unfortunately, the car was not his and a police chase ensued. Another police department caught up with him and he was arrested and charged with receiving a stolen motor vehicle [M.G.L. ch. 266 section 28].

    In Massachusetts the offense of receiving a stolen motor vehicle is a felony and CANNOT be disposed of with a continuance without a finding [CWOF]. Disposing of a case by a cwof is NOT considered a conviction. Upon reviewing the discovery and despite the fact that the client had a criminal history, Attorney McCarthy negotiated a disposition whereby he charge was changed to use without authority. The case will be dismissed provided the defendant satisfies certain conditions and does not get rearrested.

    Read More in Theft Crimes

  • Client Charged With Trespass Avoids Arraignment

    A New Year's Eve trip to a client's high school Alma Mater took a bad turn when the local police showed up. What seemed like a good idea to enter classrooms for a trip down memory lane was clearly a bad decision. The recent graduate received a summons in the mail to appear in District Court to fact charges for committing a criminal trespass [M.G.L. Chapter 266, Section 12].

    The graduate contacted our office and we immediately went to work. Attorney McCarthy spoke with the Assistant District Attorney and an agreement was struck whereby if the defendant did a minimum number of community service hours the case would be dismissed prior to arraignment. Disposing of the case in this fashion meant that there would be absolutely NO record of the offense as the client was NEVER arraigned.  The client NEVER has to worry about potential employers or educational institutions becoming aware of this incident.

    Read More in Theft Crimes

  • Attorney McCarthy Secures Dismissal Prior To Arraignment On A Misdemeanor Shoplifting Case

    An elderly woman was charged with shoplifting from a well known department store. The defendant expected to receive a summons for a clerk's hearing. The defendant never received the summons for the clerk's hearing and a warrant issued for her arrest. Upon contacting Attorney McCarthy arrangements were made to have the warrant recalled. On the initial court appearance Attorney McCarthy negotiated the case with the District Attorney's Office and the charge against the defendant was dismissed prior to arraignment. Thus, there will not be any official record of the client facing this charge.

  • Shoplifting Charge Dismissed Against Client

    The police alleged that the defendant concealed numerous pieces of merchandise in her pocketbook and attempted to leave the store. Upon being confronted by the loss prevention officers the defendant was remorseful. She was nevertheless arrested. On the client's first appearance in court Attorney McCarthy negotiated a disposition whereby the case was dismissed on the payment of court costs. The defendant did not have to admit to sufficient facts and was not convicted of the criminal offense.

  • Attorney McCarthy Successfully Prevent Issuance Of Criminal Complaint For Shoplifting Against Defendant Following A Clerk's Hearing

    The police report alleged that the defendant was identified by a super store employee as an individual in a videotape seen stealing a number of items from the store. The perpetrator was not caught however, a store employee claimed that the person seen leaving the store without paying for items was the defendant. The defendant was summonsed to the local district court for a Clerk's Hearing. Following negotiations with the police officer a complaint did not issue against the defendant provided the defendant stays out of the store!

  • Felony Larceny Charge Dismissed Against Defendant/Initial Case

    The police report alleged that the defendant stole a number of video games and related items from a local store. Charges issued accusing the defendant of committing larceny over $250.00. If convicted, the defendant faced the possibility of a sentence of up to two and one half years in jail. Attorney McCarthy moved for dismissal due to the fact that the Commonwealth could not prove its case. The court agreed and the charge against the defendant was dismissed.

  • Charges of Larceny Over $250 Dismissed/Initial Case

    According to the police report three perpetrators committed a larceny of boxes of perfume valued at $500.00 from a Department Store at the North Shore Mall. The defendant faced up to two years in jail and up to a $25,000 fine if convicted. The report alleged that two of the perpetrator's entered the store and filled up bags with the merchandise. The pair fled to a waiting motor vehicle. Attorney McCarthy represented one of these defendants that allegedly took the merchandise from the store. According to the police, there was a video tape of the two individuals stealing the merchandise while in the store. The police investigation included reviewing the video tape and showing a single photograph of the perpetrators in the store to the security officer. Attorney McCarthy filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause to charge the defendant, a motion to suppress the identification and joined on the co-defendant's motion to dismiss for the destruction of exculpatory evidence to wit: the videotape. The District Attorney's Office moved to dismiss the case against all defendants on the hearing date.

  • Felony Charges Against Defendant Dismissed After Hearing/Initial Case

    The defendant was charged with a felony count of larceny as the result of a report of a theft of an I-pod from a parked car. According to the police report, the defendant matched the description of the perpetrator supplied to the police by an eye witness. Although not arrested at the scene, a complaint issued charging the defendant with larceny of property valued over $250.00. If convicted, the defendant faced the possibility of up to two years in jail or up to five years in state prison. Attorney McCarthy moved to have the charges dismissed due to the failure of the Commonwealth to establish probable cause that the defendant was the perpetrator. Following a pre-trial hearing, the judge dismissed the charge against the defendant.

  • Charges of racing a motor vehicle dismissed and charges of negligent operation of a motor vehicle and reckless operation of a motor vehicle to be dismissed/Initial Case

    According to the police report at approximately 8:50 p.m. an officer observed two vehicles traveling at an estimated speed of 90 miles per hour in a posted 50 miles per hour speed zone. The police officer reported that the two vehicles were side by side and determined that it was apparent that they were racing one another. The officer followed the cars and claimed that he "clocked the vehicles for over one half mile . . . in excess of 100 mph." Based on the officers observations both cars were pulled over. The defendant was charged with the criminal offenses of negligent operation of a motor vehicle and racing a motor vehicle. Attorney McCarthy negotiated the outright dismissal of the racing offense and the reckless operation offense will be dismissed provided the defendant fulfills agreed upon conditions.

    The defendant also faced a separate charge of reckless operation of a motor vehicle. A police officer claimed that that while monitoring traffic he observed a motor vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed. The officer claimed that the "radar unit" indicated that the vehicle was traveling at a speed of 86 miles per hour. The officer pulled the car over and the driver was charged with the criminal offense of reckless operation of a motor vehicle. Attorney McCarthy successfully argued to the judge that the sentence imposed should be the same as the defendant's other matter. The judge agreed and the offense of reckless operation will also be dismissed provided the defendant fulfills the agreed upon conditions.

  • Judge allows motion to suppress drugs which leads to dismissal of charge of possession of heroin/Initial Case

    A police officer pulled over a motor vehicle for allegedly traveling 30 mph in a 20 mph speed zone. The officer claimed that he observed the operator "slide down in his seat" and pull his hand from his pants. After running the operator's name it was determined that his right to operate a motor vehicle had been suspended by the registry of motor vehicles. Before placing the defendant under arrested the officer patted him down and did not feel anything suspicious.

    The officer speculated that because of the fact that the operator was dressed in "layered clothing" he may have been "concealing drugs." After the pair arrived at the local police station the officer conducted a strip search of the defendant. A white powder, alleged to be heroin and drug paraphernalia were confiscated from the defendant. The defendant was charged with possession of heroin.

    Attorney McCarthy filed a motion to suppress the drugs and related evidence maintaining that the officer did not have probable cause to conduct the strip search of the defendant. Following an evidentiary hearing, the judge allowed the motion. The drug charges against the defendant were dismissed.

  • Felony charge of breaking and entering a building in the daytime with intent to commit a felony and charge of malicious destruction of property under $250.00 dismissed at pre-trial hearing/Initial Case

    The police department applied for a complaint against the defendant for breaking and entering in the daytime with the intent to commit a felony and malicious destruction of property. The police report stated that a witness, who wished to remain anonymous, informed the police that the defendant and four other individuals broke into a local package store. The defendant faced the potential penalty of state prison for up to ten years or jail for up to two years on the charge of breaking and entering if he was convicted. The defendant also faced the potential sentence of up to two and one-half months jail on the charge of malicious destruction of property. Attorney McCarthy filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss due to lack of probable cause to issue the complaint. The District Attorney's office did not oppose the motion and the case was dismissed.