Stalking

Boston Stalking Charges – Massachusetts Stalking Defense Attorney

Massachusetts Stalking Attorney Charged With Stalking in Boston? Contact Boston Stalking Attorney Steven J. Topazio

Stalking is a relatively new crime and is generally defined as the intentional, repeated following of a person for the purpose of harassing the person with express or implied threats of violence or death.

Stalking is a specific type of harassment. When harassment is persistent, involves following or other types of surveillance and causes fear and apprehension in the victim, then it may be termed as stalking. Stalking is often charged in situations such as the following:

•      *     Ex-boyfriend, ex-husband, would-be suitor, ex-girlfriend, ex-wife, family member or neighbor following and harassing the target person over time
•      *     Unwanted advances that continue despite requests to stop, or to leave
•      *     Aggressive pursuit such as hanging out by a person’s car, following the person home after a break-up.

The crime of Stalking is governed by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265: Section 43.

Section 43. (a) Whoever (1) willfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person which seriously alarms or annoys that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and (2) makes a threat with the intent to place the person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury, shall be guilty of the crime of stalking and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or both. Such conduct, acts or threats described in this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, conduct, acts or threats conducted by mail or by use of a telephonic or telecommunication device including, but not limited to, electronic mail, internet communications and facsimile communications.

(b) Whoever commits the crime of stalking in violation of a temporary or permanent vacate, restraining, or no-contact order or judgment issued pursuant to sections eighteen, thirty-four B, or thirty-four C of chapter two hundred and eight; or section thirty-two of chapter two hundred and nine; or sections three, four, or five of chapter two hundred and nine A; or sections fifteen or twenty of chapter two hundred and nine C or a protection order issued by another jurisdiction; or a temporary restraining order or preliminary or permanent injunction issued by the superior court, shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or the state prison for not less than one year and not more than five years. No sentence imposed under the provisions of this subsection shall be less than a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of one year.

A prosecution commenced hereunder shall not be placed on file or continued without a finding, and the sentence imposed upon a person convicted of violating any provision of this subsection shall not be reduced to less than the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment as established herein, nor shall said sentence of imprisonment imposed upon any person be suspended or reduced until such person shall have served said mandatory term of imprisonment.

Penalty for Repeat Offense: Jail or state prison, minimum 2 years to maximum 10 years.
Clients of Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Steven J. Topazio, who have been charged with stalking often insist that there has been a misunderstanding. Regardless of the explanation or rationale for behavior perceived as stalking, to protect your rights at a time like this, it is critical that you contact an experienced Boston stalking attorney. Trying to “talk your way out of it” with the other person or the police is bound to make a bad situation worse.

Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Steven J. Topazio has a track record of successful outcomes for clients charged with domestic violence and sex crimes.

Contact Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Steven J. Topazio, For Help Now

What you perceive as a minor issue is no longer a simpler matter once law enforcement and the courts become involved. Choose an attorney who you know will work hard to fight for you. Schedule a free consultation with Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Steven J. Topazio. Call or contact us online.

RECENT CASE DECISIONS

August 19, 2010
Milford District Court
1066CR0676; 1066CR0687; 1066CR0853
Abuse Prevention Order, Violate, M.G.L. c. 209A § 7
Threat to Commit Crime, M.G.L. c. 275 § 2
Intimidate a Witness, M.G.L. c. 268 § 13B
Stalking in violation of Restraining Order, M.G.L. c. 265 § 43(b)

The defendant, who was a recovering addict, suffered a drug relapse after he lost his job of several years; experienced the trauma of his substance abuse counselor dying two weeks prior to his arrest, then relapsed when his girlfriend left him with their infant daughter and obtained a restraining order against him. During the drug relapse, the defendant was arrested for violating the restraining order after threatening to kill his girlfriend. The defendant hired Attorney Topazio to represent him. Due to the strength of the Commonwealth’s cases, on June 17, 2010 the defendant plead guilty to dockets 1066CR0676 alleging, among other things, a violation of an abuse prevention order in violation of ch. 209A § 7 and 1066CR0687 alleging, among other things, a violation of an abuse prevention order in violation of ch. 209A § 7. Following the defendant’s plea, the Commonwealth brought an additional charge against him alleging stalking in violation of G.L. c. 265, §43(b), a violation of which carries a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of one year. “To establish the crime of stalking in violation of G.L. c. 265, §43(a), the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant ‘(1) willfully and maliciously engage[d] in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person which seriously alarm[ed] or annoy[ed] that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and (2) [made] a threat with the intent to place the person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury.’ To establish the aggravated form of stalking at issue in this case, §43(b) (stalking in violation of court order), the Commonwealth must prove both a pattern of conduct constituting stalking under §43(a) and that the conduct violated (in this case) a 209A order that was in effect.” Attorney Topazio filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge and submitted a memorandum of law in which Attorney Topazio alleged that his client cannot be tried on the new charge due to double jeopardy grounds. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy in life or limb. The constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy has been held to consist of three separate guarantees: (1) “It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” Attorney Topazio argued that to establish the aggravated form of stalking, §43(b) (stalking in violation of court order), the Commonwealth must prove both a pattern of conduct constituting stalking under §43(a) and that the conduct violated (in this case) a 209A order that was in effect. Attorney Topazio pointed out to the Court that the Commonwealth, however, is relying on the same conduct previously the subject of his client’s convictions of violating the 209A order under dockets 1066CR0676 and 1066CR0687, and could not be tried on the aggravated offense because it violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Today Attorney Topazio convinced the court to allow his motion to dismiss the complaint against his client.
Result: Case dismissed by the court finding that a prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. >

June 17, 2010
Milford District Court
1066CR0676; 1066CR0687; 1066CR0853
Abuse Prevention Order, Violate, M.G.L. c. 209A § 7
Threat to Commit Crime, M.G.L. c. 275 § 2
Intimidate a Witness, M.G.L. c. 268 § 13B
Stalking in violation of Restraining Order, M.G.L. c. 265 § 43(b)

The defendant, who was a recovering addict, suffered a drug relapse after he lost his job of several years; experienced the trauma of his substance abuse counselor dying two weeks prior to his arrest, then relapsed when his girlfriend left him with their infant daughter and obtained a restraining order against him. During the drug relapse, the defendant was arrested for violating the restraining order after threatening to kill his girlfriend. The defendant hired Attorney Topazio to represent him. Due to the strength of the Commonwealth’s cases, on June 17, 2010 the defendant plead guilty to dockets 1066CR0676 alleging, among other things, a violation of an abuse prevention order in violation of ch. 209A § 7 and 1066CR0687 alleging, among other things, a violation of an abuse prevention order in violation of ch. 209A § 7. Following the defendant’s plea, the Commonwealth brought an additional charge against him alleging stalking in violation of G.L. c. 265, §43(b), a violation of which carries a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of one year. “To establish the crime of stalking in violation of G.L. c. 265, §43(a), the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant ‘(1) willfully and maliciously engage[d] in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person which seriously alarm[ed] or annoy[ed] that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and (2) [made] a threat with the intent to place the person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury.’ To establish the aggravated form of stalking at issue in this case, §43(b) (stalking in violation of court order), the Commonwealth must prove both a pattern of conduct constituting stalking under §43(a) and that the conduct violated (in this case) a 209A order that was in effect.” Attorney Topazio filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge and submitted a memorandum of law in which Attorney Topazio alleged that his client cannot be tried on the new charge due to double jeopardy grounds. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy in life or limb. The constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy has been held to consist of three separate guarantees: (1) “It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” Attorney Topazio argued that to establish the aggravated form of stalking, §43(b) (stalking in violation of court order), the Commonwealth must prove both a pattern of conduct constituting stalking under §43(a) and that the conduct violated (in this case) a 209A order that was in effect. Attorney Topazio pointed out to the Court that the Commonwealth, however, is relying on the same conduct previously the subject of his client’s convictions of violating the 209A order under dockets 1066CR0676 and 1066CR0687, and could not be tried on the aggravated offense because it violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court took the motion under advisement.
Result: Case pending decision of court.