Assault Crimes/Violence

How Appeals Can Help Reduce or Vacate Charges Based on Improper Convictions

Published on: May 9, 2025 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

If you are facing multiple criminal charges after a single incident, you may assume that each conviction will lead to separate punishment. In some cases, however, those convictions overlap or cover the same conduct. In Massachusetts, a conviction may be thrown out if it is based on a charge that has already been resolved. A recent decision from the state’s highest court shows how appellate review can correct errors and reduce sentencing exposure.

In a case reviewed by the Supreme Judicial Court, the accused was initially convicted of seven separate charges, including mayhem, multiple counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to maim, and misleading a police officer. The altercation occurred after the accused gave a woman a ride home. A violent confrontation followed, resulting in serious injuries to another man. The jury returned guilty verdicts on several counts, but the SJC found that some of the convictions covered the same conduct and could not stand.

When Are Convictions Considered Duplicative in Massachusetts?

Massachusetts Residents Have the Right to a Competent, Effective Defense Attorney

Published on: December 14, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

All Americans have the constitutional right to competent legal representation in criminal cases, a principle that applies to both public defenders and private attorneys. While the law does not guarantee the best lawyer in the world, it does require a certain baseline level of competence. When an attorney’s performance falls below this standard and results in harm to the client, the courts may recognize a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). This can lead to the overturning of a conviction, as the legal system seeks to ensure fairness in the administration of justice. A recent Massachusetts appellate case illustrates how IAC claims can significantly affect criminal cases and demonstrates the importance of effective legal advocacy.

In this case, the defendant was convicted on several charges, including violating an abuse prevention order, assault and battery in violation of the order, and threatening to commit a crime. On appeal, the defendant raised two key issues. First, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove the violation of the abuse prevention order, as the prosecution failed to introduce a certified copy of the order to establish its terms. Second, he claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike certain undisclosed statements and for not impeaching the victim on prior inconsistent statements.

The appellate court’s review of the case revealed critical shortcomings. The court determined that the prosecution had not introduced sufficient evidence to establish the terms of the abuse prevention order in effect at the time of the alleged violation. Without this evidence, the jury could not reasonably find that the defendant violated the order. As a result, the conviction on this charge was reversed. Regarding the assault and battery charge, the court found enough evidence to support a conviction of a lesser-included offense of simple assault and battery and remanded the case for resentencing on this lesser charge. The defendant’s claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel were particularly compelling in relation to the charge of threatening to commit a crime. The court agreed that trial counsel’s failure to object to and move to strike damaging testimony about the defendant’s alleged threats likely prejudiced the outcome of the case.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Addresses the Admission of Violent Rap Lyrics in a Homicide Trial

Published on: December 4, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The admission or suppression of evidence often plays a pivotal role in Massachusetts criminal cases. Determining whether critical pieces of evidence can be presented to a judge or jury frequently hinges on pretrial arguments. These arguments, led by skilled attorneys, aim to exclude evidence that could significantly impact the outcome of a case. One recent Massachusetts Supreme Court case highlights this reality. In this case, a defendant challenged the admission of rap lyrics he had written, which the prosecution introduced as evidence against him. Despite the defendant’s objections, the court upheld their admissibility, showing the importance of strategic pretrial advocacy.

The case involved a gruesome discovery in Cambridge, where a torso was found in a duffel bag near a business. Surveillance footage and key fob records led police to the defendant’s apartment. Subsequent searches uncovered evidence linking the defendant to the dismemberment of the victim, including bloodstains, a saw, and personal items. The defendant claimed the death resulted from self-defense during a physical altercation, but the jury ultimately convicted him of first-degree murder and improper disposal of human remains.

At trial, the prosecution introduced two rap songs written by the defendant, claiming they demonstrated his state of mind, intent, and fascination with violence. The lyrics described acts eerily similar to those committed in the case, including strangulation and dismemberment. Over the defendant’s objections, the judge admitted the lyrics as evidence, with instructions limiting how the jury could use them. Despite the defendant’s insistence that the songs were fictional and unrelated to the crime, the jury found the evidence compelling.

Massachusetts Appellate Court Allows Evidence Obtained in Warrantless Search

Published on: August 29, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is a vital protection against unlawful searches and seizures. It ensures that evidence obtained without a valid warrant cannot be used against defendants in court. However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, and law enforcement officers, along with prosecutors, often seek to leverage these exceptions to justify warrantless searches. A recent decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court highlights the complexities surrounding these issues in cases where crucial evidence is obtained without a warrant.

In a recent case, a defendant was charged with second-degree murder after a tragic incident occurred in a Boston housing development. Surveillance cameras captured the shooting, and an eyewitness described the events. The police identified the defendant as a suspect several days later, based on the eyewitness’s independent investigation. More than three months after the incident, law enforcement tracked down the defendant and arrested him without obtaining a warrant. At the time of the arrest, the defendant was seen carrying a backpack, which was later found to contain a firearm. The defendant’s legal team argued that the warrantless search of the backpack, conducted after the arrest, was unconstitutional and that the evidence should be suppressed.

The trial court heard arguments on the motion to suppress the firearm and other evidence obtained from the backpack. The court concluded that while the search could not be justified as a search incident to the defendant’s arrest, the seizure of the backpack was reasonable. The judge found that because the backpack had been on the defendant’s person immediately before his arrest, it was permissible for the officers to seize it. Despite finding the immediate search unjustified, the judge ruled that the firearm should not be suppressed, as it would have inevitably been discovered during a lawful inventory search at the police station.

The Uphill Battle of Pursuing an Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim after a Massachusetts Conviction

Published on: July 1, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Anyone accused of a crime in Massachusetts may have several opportunities to challenge the accusations lodged against them. Sometimes, charges are dismissed based on evidentiary issues before a trial occurs. At the close of a trial, defendants may be successful in asking the court to acquit them without sending the charges to a jury. After a conviction, defendants may be entitled to relief by an appeal if an error was made below. In situations where a defendant’s trial counsel made mistakes that resulted in a conviction, defendants may be entitled to relief by making a claim on appeal of “ineffective assistance of counsel.” Although it is a high bar to meet, it is possible for someone to be completely exonerated by way of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently addressed a defendant’s claim that their counsel was ineffective by failing to request a new trial before they were convicted of a violent assault crime.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, the defendant was charged with assault after she was found by a family member next to an unconscious man in an apartment. After the defendant was confronted by the man’s friends, other individuals intervened and allowed her to escape. Later, the alleged victim found a wallet that appeared to belong to the assailant, and she was tracked down and arrested. The defendant was later convicted at trial, although she took issue with her defense counsel’s performance and appealed the conviction to the state appeals court.

On appeal, the defendant’s motion for a new trial and claim of ineffective assistance of counsel were denied. She argued that her lawyer failed to inform her about the possibility of a Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF). However, a new trial can only be granted if justice likely was not served, and such motions are granted only in exceptional circumstances. The trial judge, who also ruled on the motion, found no evidence of ineffective assistance. To prove ineffective assistance, a defendant must show their lawyer’s performance was significantly below standard and likely deprived them of a substantial defense.

Can a Dramatic In-Court Identification Unfairly Influence a Jury?

Published on: July 1, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In the world of legal dramas as known by pop culture, we’ve all witnessed those intense courtroom scenes where a victim or witness dramatically points to the defendant, solidifying their guilt in the eyes of the jury. However, what these shows and movies often fail to depict is the complexity and unreliability of eyewitness identifications. Contrary to popular belief, these identifications aren’t the infallible evidence they’re often portrayed to be. In reality, they can be influenced by many of factors, leading to potentially flawed convictions.

Massachusetts law recognizes the inherent pitfalls of eyewitness identifications and imposes strict guidelines regarding their admissibility in court. Controlling legal precedents underscore the importance of these safeguards, as demonstrated by a recent case where a man’s attempted murder conviction was overturned due to an improper in-court identification that may have wrongly influenced the jury in his case.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant was arrested and charged with felony assault and attempted murder after he was identified by witnesses as the person who returned to a party and shot at a home where the alleged victim was injured by gunfire. The witness identified the defendant as the shooter while being interviewed by the police, and then testified in court that the defendant was the person she saw committing the crime. The defendant was convicted of the charges at trial, but appealed the court’s allowance for the witness to identify the defendant in a dramatic in-court fashion.

Massachusetts Appeals Court Gives Broad Access to Law Enforcement Seeking Cellular Phone Location Data

Published on: May 15, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Criminal investigations have changed drastically in the last 30 years. The rise of cell phones and smartphones has created a new field of evidentiary law related to these electronic devices. Cell phone providers can track the location and behaviors of their customers, and police often seek this information to place suspects at crime scenes. However, both cell phone companies and their customers have a Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure of their phones or data. Therefore, law enforcement must obtain a valid warrant and demonstrate probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found before they can compel a cell phone company to turn over the data. The Massachusetts Court of Appeal recently reversed a lower court’s ruling that had suppressed some evidence of assault crimes that was obtained with a warrant from the defendant’s cellular phone provider.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant had been suspected of a chain of assaults over the course of about two weeks, based on a tentative identification by one of the crime victims. After another victim notified police that they saw their assailant in public, the police apprehended and questioned the defendant. Based on other evidence, the police sought a search warrant for the data related to two phone numbers associated with the defendant. Although the warrants were issued, the defendant’s counsel successfully challenged the warrants and the evidence would not be admitted, but for the State’s appeal.

On appeal, the Court discussed the requirements for a valid search warrant for cell phone data to be issued. Law enforcement must establish probable cause that the suspect committed a crime, that the suspect’s location data would be helpful in solving or proving the crime, and that the suspect had a cell phone at the relevant times. This requires demonstrating the suspect’s association with the cell phone and showing that location data from the phone is relevant to the investigation.

Massachusetts Court Sides with Defendant in Assault Case, Ruling that Lower Court Should Have Allowed Him to Strike Jury Member

Published on: January 9, 2024 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

In a recent case before an appeals court in Massachusetts, the defendant challenged the lower court’s refusal to allow him to keep a jury member from serving on the jury during his trial. On appeal, the higher court reviewed the lower court’s record considered the defendant’s argument, and ultimately sided with the defendant, setting aside his guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was charged with mayhem, assault and battery, and violation of constitutional rights with bodily injury after he got into a fight with a security guard at a local restaurant. According to witnesses, the defendant attacked the security guard, using racial slurs as he assaulted the man.

The case went to trial, and a jury found the defendant guilty. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court’s judge should not have refused to strike one of the jurors that was part of the pre-trial jury selection.

The Decision

The higher court therefore had to decide whether it was reasonable for the judge overseeing the trial to refuse to strike the juror in question. The juror was a Black male, and the defendant asked to strike the juror, meaning he did not want the man to be part of the group of 12 jurors that would hear the case. The judge asked the reason for the defendant’s request, and counsel for the defendant explained that the juror’s mother worked for the police department and that he might therefore be biased against the defendant.

How Prior Offenses Can Drastically Affect Massachusetts Charging and Sentencing Outcomes

Published on: November 30, 2023 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

The Massachusetts criminal code is designed to allow prosecutors and judges discretion in charging and sentencing decisions in order to address the serious issue of repeat offenders. Criminal defendants with a prior record may be charged with different crimes than another person without a record. Additionally, a defendant’s record is taken into account when a judge makes sentencing decisions. These charging and sentencing decisions can have an enormous impact on the penalties that a defendant may be subjected to for the same conduct. A Massachusetts appellate court recently heard a case that challenged a lower court’s application of the Massachusetts Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to increase the punishment of a defendant with a prior juvenile offense.

According to the judicial opinion, the defendant had been charged with a firearm charge as a habitual offender because he had a prior conviction for a violent crime. The Massachusetts ACCA defines “violent crime” as an act of juvenile delinquency involving the use or possession of a deadly weapon, punishable by imprisonment for more than one year if committed by an adult. Prior decisions have established that a prior juvenile offense can serve as a predicate offense only if the Commonwealth can prove that the weapon used or possessed was inherently deadly. The defendant’s argument focused on the fact that his youthful offender adjudication involved an armed robbery with a fake handgun. The court agreed with the defendant that the defendant’s prie crime did not apply as a violent crime as required by the ACCA. A competent attorney was crucial in presenting this argument effectively, as the prosecution had to prove the inherent deadliness of the weapon, a nuanced distinction.

This judicial opinion underscores the pivotal role of competent legal counsel when facing cases involving prior offenses. Competent attorneys are vital in cases where the proper interpretation of statutes can mean the difference between enhanced sentencing and a more lenient outcome. They must be well-versed in legal precedent, statutory construction, and the nuanced distinctions between legal terms, such as “dangerous” and “deadly” weapons.

Massachusetts Court of Appeals Decides Defendant in Assault and Battery Case is Entitled to New Trial

Published on: December 21, 2022 | by Patrick J. Murphy, Esq.

Earlier this month, an appeals court in Massachusetts considered whether a defendant in an assault case should be entitled to a new trial. Originally, the defendant was charged with and convicted of assault and battery on a person over the age of fourteen. Once the defendant appealed, the higher court reconsidered the conviction and decided that the defendant was eligible for a new trial.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant first threatened and then physically harmed the victim in this case in April 2016. The day after the assault occurred, the victim recounted what happened to her friend. Two months later, she decided to report the assault to a detective. The detective investigated the incident, found the defendant, and eventually arrested him on charges of assault and battery.

The case went to trial, and a jury found the defendant guilty as charged. Promptly, the defendant appealed his conviction, asking the higher court to grant him a new trial.