Misdemeanors

Boston Misdemeanor Defense Attorney

Boston Misdemeanor Crimes Attorney

In Massachusetts, misdemeanors are crimes punishable by up to two and one-half years in jail and are usually tried in the District Court. Misdemeanor crimes are less serious than felonies, but a conviction will still leave a mark on your permanent record and have a damaging effect on your future. If convicted of a misdemeanor, you might hinder your ability to find work, obtain financial aid for college, jeopardize your ability to obtain a license to carry a firearm, damage your reputation, and limit your housing, and financial opportunities.  If you are not a United States citizen, a misdemeanor conviction could deny your ability to become a citizen, result in your deportation, or exclusion from this country. For these reasons, it’s in your best interest to hire an experienced and knowledgeable Boston misdemeanor crimes attorney to protect your rights and represent you in court.

Defense for Misdemeanors in Boston

Boston misdemeanor crimes lawyer Steven J. Topazio has defended countless clients against all types of misdemeanor offenses, including but not limited to:

•      *     Larceny under $250.00
•      *     Shoplifting and petty theft offenses
•      *     Domestic Violence
•      *     Malicious Destruction of Property
•      *     Drug possession: marijuana, cocaine, heroin
•      *     Disorderly Conduct
•      *     Trespassing
•      *     Drunk Driving/OUI, DUI
•      *     Motor vehicle violations
•      *     Gambling
•      *     Prostitution
•      *     Assault and battery
•      *     A Minor in Possession of Alcohol
•      *     Operating Without a License

Comprehensive Investigation and Case-Building

Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Topazio is prepared to investigate every aspect of the allegations and circumstances of your case, in order to identify the right strategy and build an aggressive defense on your behalf. Contact Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Topazio for a free confidential consultation.

RECENT CASE DECISIONS

Boston Municipal Court West Roxbury Division

Neighbor Dispute,

Threats – MGL c. 275 § 2

Annoying Phone Calls – MGL c. 269 § 14A

Witness Intimidation – MGL c. 268 § 13B

258E Harassment Order

The client, a 54 year homemaker, hired Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio after she was summonsed to court for an arraignment for threats, annoying phone calls, and witness intimidation. The client also received an application for the issuance of a 258E Harassment Restraining Order.  According to police reports, the client repeatedly called and harassed her neighbor, allegedly while intoxicated, and threatened to kill them, then threatened her neighbor for bringing charges against her.  Attorney Topazio discovered that these long time neighbors were once friends, living in the same housing complex, were now engaged in a long running dispute.  Attorney Topazio initially appeared in court in defense of his client on the hearing for the issuance of a 258E Restraining Order.  258E Harassment Prevention Orders require that the plaintiff establish proof of three or more acts of wilful and malicious conduct aimed at the plaintiff committed with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that does in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.  Attorney Topazio persuaded the court that the plaintiff did not meet her burden of proof and the Harassment Order was denied.  Today, Attorney Topazio persuaded the court to dismiss the felony Witness intimidation charge against his client, by agreeing to a continuance without a finding CWOF on the misdemeanor threat and annoying phone call charges, with a condition that his client keeps the peace so long as she and the complainant remain neighbors and the court agreed.

Result: Felony charge dismissed; Harassment Prevention Order denied; and client accepts CWOF on threats and annoying phone calls upon change of plea. 

 

May 29, 2014

East Boston District Court

Disorderly conduct MGL c 272 § 53
Resist Arrest MGL c 268 § 32B

The client, a 24 year old college graduate and IT professional, was arrested after getting into a fight at a graduation party, hired Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio to defend him.  According to the Winthrop Police report, the client became intoxicated after attending a graduation and refused to cooperate with the police officers or answer any of their questions.  According to the police report, after a period of time the client became incensed, began flailing his arms and screamed and used profanities against the officer.  Due to the client’s disorderly behavior, the officer tried to place the client under arrest.  The client refused to be handcuffed; tensed his body and refused to enter the cruiser.  According to police, at that point the client was physically restrained by the police and then placed into the officer’s cruiser.  Criminal Defense Attorney Topazio met with the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case and persuaded the prosecutor to agree to give his client a term of pretrial probation.  Pretrial probation is a court approved agreement between the client and prosecutor before a trial or plea of guilty.  It is not an admission of the offenses charged but rather a general continuance of the case with the agreement that at the end the case will be dismissed.

Result: Case resolved by way of Pretrial Probation.

August 22, 2013
Fall River District Court
Docket # 1332CR0160
Assault and Battery Dangerous Weapon M.G.L c.265 § 15A(b)
Disorderly Conduct, Subsequent M.G.L c.272 § 53
Disturbing The Peace M.G.L c.272 § 53
Threat to Commit Crime M.G.L c.275 § 2
Resist Arrest M.G.L c.268 § 32B

The client, a 28 year old head line chef, and father of two, was arrested on multiple counts after getting into a confrontation with police, hired Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Steven J. Topazio to defend him. Attorney Topazio challenged the evidence and filed a Motion to Dismiss in the case. The police report in the case indicated that as officers who were investigating an unrelated crime of a possible rape in progress, they came upon the client in a parked car in a parking lot and attempted to handcuff him for their safety, when he began to resist by thrashing around and trying to pull his arms free from their grasp. The client began yelling obscenities at the police and for other people to come outside and help him. The police report did not report that the client was under arrest for disorderly when he pulled his arm away from the police officer who was pulling the client through the broken window of his motor vehicle. When trying to place the client into the police cruiser, it was alleged the client kicked an officer in the head. Attorney Topazio argued that the evidence used to establish probable cause for the charge of Disorderly Conduct in violation of M.G.L. c. 272 §53, relied upon by the clerk-magistrate, was insufficient as the report did not establish that defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. The application for complaint is based upon the report, which establishes that the defendant was yelling for help after being pulled through a broken car window hole smashed by police. The report merely states that the defendant, who didn’t want to be touched or interact with police, pulled away from police when they were trying to handcuff him allegedly for police safety as the defendant was not under arrest. Attorney Topazio argued that these facts were insufficient to establish disorderly conduct. Today, Attorney Topazio persuaded the court to dismiss all charges against his client upon a a change of plea to guilty probation to the resisting arrest.
Result: All charges dismissed upon a sentence of probation to resisting arrest charge.

August 01, 2013
Boston Municipal Court
Docket # 1301CR4427
Assault and Battery M.G.L c.265 § 13A
College Student

The client, a summer school student at Boston College, was arrested for assault and battery after allegedly getting into a fight with his roommate at BC over making too much noise in the dorm room, was represented by Attorney Steven J. Topazio. The client was full time college student at Oberlin College in Ohio, and attending school in the United States pursuant to a student visa. Today, Attorney Topazio persuaded the court to place his client on pretrial probation for a period of six months with no travel restrictions, so his client can return to Oberlin College in Ohio to complete his education. Being placed on pretrial probation means the client did not have to admit to committing the offense. Pretrial probation is not a guilty plea or a conviction which could affect an individual’s immigration status. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276, section 87 allows for the court to place someone on probation for a certain period of time. If the client stays out of trouble during the period of pretrial probation, the case will be dismissed.
Result: Client receives Pretrial Probation and avoids a trial and possible conviction.

July 15, 2013
Natick District Court
1387AC0198
Shoplifting M.G.L. c 266 / 120
Trespass M.G.L. c 266 / 30A
Application For Criminal Complaint
Magistrate Hearing

The client, a 31 year old professional, received a summons for a Magistrate Hearing for shoplifting and trespass in Roche Brothers in Natick, hired Boston Criminal Lawyer Steven J. Topazio to represent him. Attorney Topazio learned that his client had previously been charged with shoplifting in Roche Brothers in the past and given a no trespass order in 2004. Despite the prior shoplifting charge, Attorney Topazio persuaded the Magistrate, who found probable cause to issue the complaint, to hold the complaint for six months on the condition that if the client remain out of trouble during that time, and if he did then all charges would be dismissed.
Result: Complaint not issued but held for six months on condition client stay out of trouble.

June 17, 2013
East Boston District Court
Docket # 1205CR0434
Assault and Battery c.265 § 13A

The client, a 43 year old female cab driver, was arrested outside of Boston Logan Airport for allegedly head-butting a Massport employee. In the police report, the Massport employee stated that she approached the client’s cab and asked her to move the vehicle forward because she was obstructing buses from discharging passengers. The report then stated that the client refused and exited her vehicle and continuously yelled at the Massport employee then head-butted her before leaving. The client left the scene and was later summonsed to East Boston District Court and after a Magistrate hearing, a complaint for Assault and Battery was issued. The client then hired Boston Criminal Attorney Steven J. Topazio to defend her. The client denied any physical contact with the alleged victim. Realizing the event must have been captured on surveillance video, Attorney Topazio demanded copies of all video surveillance footage at Logan where the incident allegedly occurred. When the videos were not produced, Attorney Topazio filed a motion for authorization to subpoena complete security surveillance videos from Massport which the court allowed. Attorney Topazio discovered that the terminal where the alleged incident occurred has 8 surveillance cameras. The State Police, however, only produced one camera angle and failed to provide complete videos of all camera angles relating to this matter as ordered by the court. Not satisfied with only one video angle, Attorney Topazio filed a motion to compel discovery of the other camera angles and learned that the other camera angles were viewed by the State Police, and after viewing the videos and determining their probative value to the case without allowing Attorney Topazio to view the evidence, destroyed the footage. Attorney Topazio believed that exculpatory evidence was destroyed and filed a motion to dismiss the case due to egregious police misconduct and the loss of evidence. Attorney Topazio argued that prosecutorial misconduct includes not only lack of disclosure by the prosecutor but also inept and bungling performance of the police, which is attributed to the prosecutors, and that the prosecutor should be held responsible for the police loss of evidence. Today, the judge agreed with Attorney Topazio and allowed his motion to dismiss the case on the grounds of loss of potentially exculpatory evidence.
Result: Motion to Dismiss allowed. Case Dismissed.

June 12, 2013

Boston Municipal Court – Central

Docket # 1301CR1605
Disorderly Conduct
Resisting Arrest

The client, an 18 year old high school graduate, was arrested while attending a Dropkick Murphys concert at the TD Bank North Garden in Boston, hired Boston Criminal Attorney Steven J. Topazio to represent him. Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Topazio learned that his client was arrested after he entered the floor area of the concert, and was ejected from that area when he protested. Attorney Topazio provided a copy of the floor ticket to the Dropkick Murphys the client received as a Christmas gift from his parents, to the district attorney. Attorney Topazio pointed out that not only was his client authorized to have been in the floor area of the Dropkick Murphys concert when he was arrested, but his client didn’t even have the opportunity to watch the concert. Today, Attorney Topazio persuaded the court to grant his client

November 05, 2012
Boston Municipal Court
Docket # 1201CR4086
Trespass M.G.L. c. 266 § 120

The client, a 55 year old Realtor and mother of three, was arrested and held in custody after police were called to remove an intoxicated person from her hotel room. When the police arrived, the client was asleep in her room. The officer asked the client several times to pack her bags and find another place to stay. When the client refused to leave stating she paid for the room, she was arrested for trespass. The client was represented by Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio. At the client’s scheduled arraignment, Attorney Topazio requested that his client not be arraigned do to the fact that he argued that the police lacked probable cause to arrest his client. Attorney Topazio argued that since his client was a paid guest, she had the lawful right to occupy the premises and could not be arrested for trespass even after being asked to leave. Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Topazio was successful in convincing the court to continue his client’s arraignment to research the matter. On the return date, Attorney Topazio asked the court to dismiss his client’s case prior to arraignment citing the fact that by statute, the trespass statute “shall not apply to tenants or occupants of residential premises who, having rightfully entered said premises at the commencement of the tenancy or occupancy, remain therein after such tenancy or occupancy has been or is alleged to have been terminated. The owner or landlord of said premises may recover possession thereof only through appropriate civil proceedings.” Today, the court granted Attorney Topazio’s Motion to dismiss.
Result: Case dismissed prior to arraignment.

July 10, 2012
Boston Municipal Court
Docket # 1201 CR 2175; 1201 CR 2524; 1101 CR 2978

Trespass M.G.L. c. 266 § 120
Probation Surrender

The client, a 34 year old college graduate, was on probation and given a notice of Probation Violation Hearing after being arrested for Trespass. Although initially released on personal recognizance to appear at his final probation surrender hearing, the client was arrested again for trespass and held without bail on a probation detainer. When you are held on a detainer you are held without bail. You are not entitled to a bail appeal to Superior Court to review the detainer and you cannot get out of jail by posting bail. You must instead get your detainer lifted by the judge who held you on the detainer, or get the detainer lifted by the judge who will preside over your final surrender hearing, provided you are lucky enough not to be committed by that judge. Today, Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Steven J. Topazio convinced the Court to reprobate his Client after a plea of guilty time served on each trespass charge despite the Commonwealth’s recommendation to commit his client.
Result: Detainer lifted and Client re-probated and released from custody.

April 23, 2012
Chelsea District Court
Docket # 1114CR3664
Threat to Commit Crime MGL c. 275 § 2

The client, a 45 year old individual, received an application for criminal complaint which alleged that he threatened and intimidated his neighbor. According to the police report, the neighbor alleged that he was threatened and intimidated after calling police to report that his neighbor was emptying his fish tank on the parties’ common driveway. It was reported that the client stated, after being confronted, that if the neighbor called the police again then the next time the police come they will be coming for the neighbor’s body. Attorney Topazio attempted to resolve the case without an admission but when the Commonwealth refused he moved the case to trial. At trial, Attorney Topazio argued that the court impose a peace bond on his client in lieu of trial or an admission, ordering his client to keep the peace. Attorney Topazio argued that MGL c. 275 § 4 not only provides for imprisonment for not more than six months after a conviction but also authorizes the Judge to avoid imposing a sentence on a defendant if he chooses and allows the court to order a defendant to enter into a recognizance, with sufficient sureties, to keep the peace. This is known as a peace bond. Today, Attorney Topazio was able to convince both the Commonwealth and the Court to continue his client’s case generally with an order that if the client keeps the peace, (peace bond) then the complaint will be dismissed.
Result: Trial avoided and complaint to be dismissed on condition that the client keeps the peace.

March 14, 2012
BMC South Boston Division
Docket # 1103CR1380
Shoplifting by Concealing Merchandise M.G.L. c. 266 § 30A
Threat To Commit Crime M.G.L. c. 275 § 2

The client, a 30 year old Computer Software Engineer, was arrested for Shoplifting and Threats, hired Attorney Steven J. Topazio to defend him. According to the police report, the Client stole a bag of shrimp from a local grocery store then made statements allegedly threatening the store security when he was stopped. Attorney Topazio met with his client and learned that he went through the self check-out line and actually purchased other items. Attorney Topazio caused his client to obtain copies of his bank records showing the transaction. Attorney Topazio met with the Assistant District Attorney and argued that merchants who create self-checkout lines for their customers should assist them with these transactions when a problem is detected in lieu of having them arrested. Attorney Topazio was able to persuade the Assistant District Attorney to recommend giving his Client pre-trial probation as a method of resolving the case. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276, section 87 allows for the court to place a defendant on probation without admitting to sufficient facts and if that defendant is able to complete probation and abide by all the terms, the defendant is rewarded by having his case dismissed. Today, Attorney Topazio was able to convince the Court to adopt the joint recommendation of 3 months unsupervised pre-trial probation.
Result: After the period of pre-trial probation, the charges will be dismissed provided the Client obeys all state and local laws.

March 07, 2012
BMC West Roxbury Division
Docket # 1206CR0006
Malicious Destruction of Property over $250 M.G.L. c. 266 § 127
B & E Nighttime for Felony M.G.L. c. 266 § 16
Resist Arrest M.G.L. c. 268 § 32B

The client, a 20 year old College Student, was arrested on New Year’s Eve for breaking windows on motor vehicles, hired Attorney Steven J. Topazio to defend him. According to the police report, the Client was seen by police leaning through a broken front driver’s side window of a motor vehicle then run from police when they announced themselves. Attorney Topazio met with his client and learned that he was abandoned by his friends who left a party without him and then the Client was thrown out of a New Year’s Eve party and had no place to stay. Due to poor judgment and excessive drinking, the Client was looking for a car to spend the night in. Attorney Topazio obtained his client’s grades from school and shared them with the prosecutor to establish his client’s good character. Attorney Topazio pointed out that running from the police doesn’t meet the requirements of resisting arrest charge and persuaded the Prosecutor to dismiss that charge. Today, Attorney Topazio was successful in persuading the Commonwealth to reduce the remaining felony charges to misdemeanors on the condition that his client receive a CWOF despite his past criminal record which included convictions and committed time, and the court agreed.
Result: All felony charges reduced to misdemeanor charges and client avoids committed time and convictions on his record by receiving CWOF on each of the reduced counts.

January 04, 2012
Boston Municipal Court
Docket Intentionally Omitted
Resisting Arrest M.G.L. c. 268 § 32B
Disorderly Conduct M.G.L. 272 § 53

The client, a 24 year old college graduate who enlisted in the United States Army and was due to be deployed in February, was arrested after getting into a fight on New Year’s Eve. According to the police report, the police observed New Years revelers block an intersection during a fight, causing pedestrians not to be able to get through. The client, who was seen by police getting struck in the face, ran from police and struggled with them by stiffing his arms and refusing to be handcuffed. Attorney Topazio met with the prosecutor and pointed out that his client was disoriented after being struck and thought he was being attacked when he ran from individuals which he believed were his attackers and not police. Today at his client’s arraignment, Attorney Topazio argued that the charges would delay his client’s scheduled deployment to Ft. St. Houston, Texas, and was successful in convincing the Commonwealth and Court to dismiss all charges prior to arraignment, thus preserving his client’s unblemished CORI.
Result: Case dismissed prior to arraignment.

September 19, 2011
Boston Municipal Court
Docket No. 1101CR4884

Malicious Destruction of Property Over $250 c 266 § 127
Disorderly Conduct c 272 § 53
Resisting Arrest c 268 § 32B
The Client, a barber from Ireland on vacation in the United States, was arrested after he became intoxicated at a local pub and was thrown out by the bar manager. After being thrown out, the Client became violent, banging on the door then head butting the glass window to the pub causing it to shatter. When police arrived, the Client ran at the officers with his hands in a striking position, and was arrested. Attorney Topazio was informed that his client had a return ticket to Ireland and wanted to resolve the case before he left the country, but didn’t want a criminal record or to preclude his chances of returning to the United States in the future. Today, Attorney Topazio persuaded the prosecutor and the judge to place the Client on pre-trial probation for one year with restitution of $300.00, (to pay for the damage he caused to the pub). Placing the Client on pre trial probation means the Client does not admit to the charges or is found guilty by the Court. As long as the Client pays restitution and stays out of trouble for one year, all charges filed against him will be dismissed. The Client also avoids any adverse immigration consequences regarding readmission to the United States in the future.
Result: Case Dismissed.

April 08, 2011
Framingham District Court
1087CR0723

Shoplifting by Asportation, M.G.L. c. 266 § 30A
Receiving Stolen Property over $250, M.G.L. c. 266 § 60

The defendant, while at J.C. Penny in the Natick Collection, was arrested for shoplifting when she left the store without paying for several items of clothing. A subsequent search of her motor vehicle by police resulted in the disclosure of other items of clothing from Macys. When the defendant could not produce a receipt for the clothing discovered in her vehicle, she was arrested, hired Attorney Topazio to represent her. Attorney Topazio filed discovery motions for copies of store surveillance videos and tapes of transmissions with the police. Attorney Topazio filed a motion to suppress the evidence discovered in his client’s car alleging the search of the car was illegal and without probable cause or consent and all evidence obtained by the police was the fruit of this wrongful search. Today, prior to an evidentiary hearing, Attorney Topazio convinced the district attorney to dismiss the shoplifting charge on court costs and to reduce the felony receiving stolen property court to the misdemeanor offense of receiving stolen property under $250 in violation of M.G.L. c. 266 § 30, and the court agreed, continuing the mater without a finding for six months.
Result: Shoplifting charge dismissed and felony charge of receiving stolen property reduced to a misdemeanor and continued without a finding for six months.

February 22, 2011
Boston Municipal Court
1101CR0413

Disorderly Conduct M.G.L. c. 272 § 53
The defendant, a student attending college in Boston, was denied entrance to a local club due to his intoxication and was asked to leave the area, but refused. When the defendant started to scream profanity at random, a Boston Police Officer told him to leave but instead the defendant demanded to be arrested. Unfortunately for the defendant, the officer obliged. After the defendant was arrested and booked for disorderly conduct, he hired Attorney Topazio to represent him. Attorney Topazio met with the prosecuting attorney and negotiated that his client complete 20 hours of community service in exchange for the charge being dismissed and the Commonwealth agreed. In lieu of being arraigned on the case, which would have resulted in the formation of a criminal record, Attorney Topazio requested that his client’s case be continued for further arraignment to give the client time to complete the community service hours. Today, after submitting proof that his client completed the requested community service hours, Attorney Topazio convinced the court to dismiss his client’s case prior to arraignment.
Result: Case dismissed prior to arraignment thus preventing any entry on his client’s criminal record.

January 24, 2011
Chelsea District Court
1014 CR 1448

Disorderly Conduct, M.G.L. c. 272 § 53
Resisting Arrest, M.G.L. c. 268 § 32B
Possession of Class B, M.G.L. c. 94C § 34

The defendant, a chef from Boston, hired Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio to represent him after he was arrested for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and possession of cocaine. Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio attacked the sufficiency of the complaint filed against his client and filed a motion to dismiss with the court. The defendant was arrested when police responded to a bar called Las Pupusas in Chelsea for a fight in the bar. When the police arrived they observed no one fighting but were informed by the bartender that the defendant, who was seated at the bar, was cut off and asked to leave. The police report stated that the police officer told the defendant to leave the bar and grabbed him by the arm to escort him out of the establishment but when the defendant pulled his arm away from the officer he was taken to the ground. After being arrested, cocaine was found in the defendant’s wallet.
Courts generally do not inquire into the competency or sufficiency of the evidence in support of a criminal complaint. However, despite this general rule, a court may properly review the evidence presented to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to find probable cause for the defendant’s arrest, or to determine whether the acts which the defendant is alleged to have done constitute a crime. In the Municipal and District Courts, the charging document is the complaint, rather than the grand jury indictment, but a determination of probable cause is similar. Once a complaint issues, a motion to dismiss is the appropriate and only way to challenge a finding of probable cause.
Today, Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Steven J. Topazio argued that the charges against his client should be dismissed because the police report did not establish probable cause to believe his client committed those offenses. Attorney Topazio argued that according to statute, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew that the officer was attempting to arrest him to be charged with resisting instead of only trying to escort the defendant out of the restaurant, (which was empty), which also did not establish that defendant disturbed the public tranquility, or alarmed or provoked others, so as to be charged with disorderly conduct. Despite the Commonwealth’s opposition, the court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss.
Result: Motion to Dismiss allowed. Case dismissed.

August 16, 2010
Chelsea District Court
1014CR2197

Affray (common law) M.G.L. c. 277 §39
The defendant was arrested by police after being seen fighting with another individual in the vicinity of a public park, and charged with the crime of affray. The elements of affray are (1) fighting together of two or more persons (2) in a public place, and (3) to the terror of the persons lawfully there. Attorney Topazio, who represented the defendant, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint alleging the magistrate who issued the complaint did not have probable cause to issue the complaint against his client. Attorney Topazio pointed out that in the narrative of the police report, the officer described the park as crowded with many children present. The Officer stated that due to the presence of these onlookers he arrested the defendant and the other mutual combatant. Today Attorney Topazio argued his Motion to Dismiss before the Court. Attorney Topazio pointed out that under the probable cause requirement, a complaint shall not issue unless the information presented by the complainant establishes probable cause to believe that the person against whom the complaint is sought committed an offense. Attorney Topazio argued that the evidence used to establish probable cause for the charge of affray in violation of M.G.L. c. 277 §39, relied upon by the clerk-magistrate, was insufficient as the report did not establish that any person lawfully there was put in terror. The application for complaint was based upon the report, which documents the officer’s observations. The report merely stated that the park where this happened was crowded with many people, including children, and that there were “onlookers”. Attorney Topazio argued that what is important for purposes of this charge, however, is whether the response of the “onlookers” rose not just to the level of interest (as the term “onlooker” implies) but the level of “terror”. Attorney Topazio argued that there was no indication that the officer observed anyone to be in terror or any indication in the report or application for complaint that any person was in terror. Over the commonwealth’s objection, the Court agreed with Attorney Topazio and allowed his Motion to dismiss.
Result: After hearing, Motion to Dismiss allowed and case dismissed.

February 24, 2010
Roxbury District Court
0902CR5143

Trespass M.G.L. c. 266 § 120
Resist Arrest M.G.L. c. 268 § 32B

Officers of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Police Department which were dispatched to the emergency department to remove the defendant who was verbally trespassed earlier in the night for verbally threatening staff because he believed his friend was not being treated quickly enough, was arrested. The defendant, a Marine who recently returned from a tour in Iraq, hired Attorney Topazio. Attorney met with the prosecuting attorney in an attempt to resolve his client’s case short of trial and to preserve his record. Following several court appearances, Attorney Topazio convinced the district Attorney to dismiss his client’s case provided his client voluntarily submit to psychotherapy treatment, and the court agreed.
Result: Case dismissed.

December 02, 2009
East Boston District Court
0905 CR 1936

Unlicensed Operation M.G.L. c. 90, § 10
Logan-Speeding over posted limit 740 CMR § 21.51
Seat Belt, Fail Wear M.G.L. c. 90, § 13A
The defendant, who resides in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was visiting Massachusetts for a convention and received a criminal citation after getting lost at Logan International Airport trying to find the Ted Williams Tunnel, hired Attorney Topazio after receiving a summons to appear in court. The client informed Attorney Topazio that due to extenuating circumstances, she preferred not to return to Massachusetts and wanted him to waive her presence in court and to resolve her case in her absence. According to the Criminal Rules of Procedure, Rule 7(b), Attorney Topazio filed his appearance in court, advanced his client’s case and waived her appearance at her arraignment. Attorney Topazio represented to the court that he had his client’s authority to resolve her case in her absence, provided the court would allow; which it did. After conferencing the case with the District Attorney and the judge, Attorney Topazio caused his client to be found not responsible on both the civil infractions and represented to court, that if the remaining criminal charge were dismissed, that his client would pay $150.00 in court costs in lieu of returning to Massachusetts to fight the charge; and the court agreed. Today, Attorney Topazio convinced the court, with the District Attorney’s consent, to give his client until December 30, 2009 to pay $150.00 before dismissing the case.
Result: Defendant found not responsible on civil infractions and criminal charge to be dismissed upon payment of court costs.

September 17, 2009
Lowell District Court
0911CR4955

Disorderly Conduct MGL c. 272 § 53
The defendant, who was on probation in Lowell on a different matter, was arrested for Disorderly conduct after becoming loud, yelling profanities and making derogative remarks to the Chelmsford Police and those associated with the police, with the purpose of annoying and harassing them. The defendant hired Attorney Topazio. Attorney Topazio attacked the basis of the charge arguing that his client did not have the purpose to cause a public inconvenience as required by statute. Today Attorney Topazio convinced the Commonwealth to dismiss the charge against his client, and the Court agreed.
Result: Case dismissed.