Steven J. Topazio - Attorney At Law

The defendant, a resident of Connecticut, had his right to operate a motor vehicle in Massachusetts suspended after receiving moving violations out of state and missing a scheduled court hearing in Concord District Court, hired Attorney Topazio. Attorney discovered several irregularities in the Registry of Motor Vehicles records on his client and corrected same, including purging his client of the court default in the Concord District Court. Today after hearing Attorney Topazio convinced the RMV to reinstate his client’s driving privileges, and the RMV agreed.

The defendant, who had previously been found responsible for two moving violations this year after representing himself, was facing a 30 day license suspension after receiving his third moving violation in one year (if found responsible), hired Attorney Topazio to represent him this time. The client, who was on his way to the airport to pick up his girlfriend, was given a citation for speeding after being stopped in the Ted Williams tunnel after radar indicated that he was traveling 55 in a 35 mph zone. Today Attorney Topazio convinced a clerk magistrate to find his client not responsible.

The defendant, a business professional with no prior criminal record, hired Attorney Topazio after being accused of punching his wife with a closed fist numerous times; throwing her into a bathtub injuring her; then choking her to prevent her from calling the police. Attorney Topazio reviewed hospital records and the evidence in the case then met with the investigating detective in an attempt to resolve the matter without his client being formerly charged. Today, after addressing the court’s and detective’s concerns during a magistrate’s hearing, Attorney Topazio convinced a clerk magistrate not to issue a criminal complaint against his client.

The defendant, who was at the Massachusetts General Hospital with his girlfriend and infant child, was arrested by police when nurses heard the victim yell she was being hit and observed the defendant pulling the victim by the hair as she was on the floor. When interviewed by police, the victim alleged that the defendant punched her in the face with a closed fist and then grabbed her by the neck and dragged her across the room by her hair as she was screaming for help. Attorney Topazio, who represented the defendant, pushed the case to trial arguing that his client was the real victim. Attorney Topazio obtained photos of his client’s leg where he was bitted by the alleged victim and challenged the victim’s motivation and credibility. Attorney Topazio met with the Assistant District Attorney and explained that his client, who had a child with the alleged victim, was attempting to leave the hospital when he was grabbed by the victim in an attempt to stop him from leaving. When the defendant refused and turned to walk out, she slid down to the ground and out of frustration, bit the defendant in the leg. After being bitten, Attorney Topazio pointed out that the defendant grabbed the alleged victim by the hair to get her off him, which is what the nurse observed, but misinterpreted. Today at trial, due to a development of the facts of the case by Attorney Topazio, the count for Assault and Battery against the defendant was dismissed and the charge for possession of class D, marijuana, was continued without a finding for six months, despite his client’s lengthy criminal record.

The defendant, who was represented by Attorney Topazio, was arrested when he became belligerent to an off duty police officer. After being warned to go home otherwise he would be arrested, the defendant slapped the officer with an open hand on the buttocks. The defendant then resisted the officers at every opportunity and refused to submit to the arrest. Attorney Topazio learned that his client was out celebrating his birthday when he became extremely intoxicated which led to his arrest. Attorney Topazio caused his client to write a letter of apology to the officer and met with the District Attorney in an attempt to resolve the case short of trial. Attorney Topazio conferenced the case with the Court and pointed out that his client, who had no prior record, apologized to the police for his behavior and would address his excessive drinking by attending AA if the court would consider dismissing all charges before the next court date. Attorney Topazio’s goal was to prevent his client from getting a criminal record. Today, after proving to the court that his client was addressing his drinking problem, Attorney Topazio convinced the court to dismiss all charges against his client.

The defendant, who was living in Hawaii, could not renew her license when she found out there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest in the Brookline District Court, hired Attorney Topazio to represent her. Attorney Topazio went to the Brookline Court and discovered the warrant was for defaulting on a probation case. Attorney Topazio met with the Probation Officer assigned to his client’s case to see if the case could be resolved without his client having to appear because she was stuck in Hawaii and could not travel without identification. Today, Attorney Topazio appeared in the Brookline District Court and caused the Court to recall the outstanding warrant against his client in her absence, and caused fines to be paid so as to allow the court to close the case against his client.

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.

The defendant, a professional mother of a young child, was arrested after making a false report that her motor vehicle was stolen, hired Attorney Topazio. Attorney Topazio discovered that his client made the false report because her boyfriend pressured her into doing so when he was allegedly seen by police abandoning her car which he had been using, which later was found to contain 34 plastic bags of cocaine. At his client’s arraignment, Attorney Topazio met with the District Attorney in an attempt to resolve his client’s case, arguing that his client was coerced into breaking the law by her boyfriend and thus not responsible. Attorney Topazio pointed out that his client, who had no criminal record, allegedly confessed to the police as to what she had done and took responsibility for her actions. Attorney Topazio pointed out that his client’s boyfriend pressured his client to report the car stolen so he wouldn't get arrested. Today, after several court appearances, Attorney Topazio convinced the District Attorney to place his client on pre-trial probation for a period of six months, instead of having his client plead guilty or admit to sufficient facts, thus preserving her record and career.

The defendant, with criminal case entries in several courts on his CORI but with no convictions, hired Attorney Topazio to seal his criminal record. Attorney Topazio filed a motion to seal in court and argued that in order to advance his client’s career his client needed a clean record. Attorney Topazio argued that if his client's CORI cauased him to lose employment then he might fall onto the welfare of the state. Attoreny Topazio request to seal his client’s record was allowed by the court.

The defendant, who was on probation, wanted to terminate his probation early, and hired Attorney Topazio. On May 12, 2009, the defendant pled guilty to the lesser included offense of Assault and Battery and was placed on probation for two (2) years to May 12, 2011, with conditions of probation that included, among other things, random alcohol and drug testing, and counseling. Attorney Topazio contacted his client’s therapist and learned that his client completed all the behavior modification and parenting skills that he had worked on with his therapist during his therapeutic sessions and obtained a report confirming same. Attorney Topazio contacted his client’s probation officer and negotiated with her and reached an agreement that she would not oppose his client’s motion to terminate. Attorney Topazio filed a motion to terminate his client’s probation and argued in court that his client had met all the terms of his probation and was in compliance with the terms of his probation since May 12, 2009 and that all the goals of probation were met and requested that his client’s probation be terminated early. Despite the lack of opposition form probation, the court took no action on the motion to terminate probation and suggested that the motion be argued at a later date because the court reasoned that not enough time had gone by to allow the motion at that time. Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged the defendant’s progress and rewarded him by vacating all conditions of probation, and further ordered that the supervised probation be changed to limited supervision, with no reporting and vacating all remaining payments.