Boston - Massachusetts Assault and Battery Attorney | Boston Assault Attorney
Massachusetts Assault and Battery Attorney
Contact Boston Assault and Battery Attorney Steven J. Topazio
If you have been accused of committing an Assault and Battery crime in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts you may be facing serious legal consequences. Only a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney will have the experience needed to protect your legal rights. Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Steven J. Topazio has successfully defended clients who have been accused of or arrested for Assault and Battery crimes.
Assault and Battery Defense
Allegations of assault or battery can arise in any number of circumstances. Horse play can go out of control such as when a pushing match results in someone getting hurt; a fight starts because one person feels disrespected by another person’s comments; an argument with a girlfriend or boyfriend becomes physical; a fight with a co-worker goes out of control; could all result in charges being filed. Typically, an argument of some sort initiates the confrontation. Often exacerbated by alcohol, pride or other factors, the argument turns into a serious offense when someone is hit or punched and the police are called. When the police are called to a fight, their job is to make an arrest. The resulting criminal charges that follow need to be sorted out in court. It is important to have an experienced criminal defense attorney review the circumstances surrounding the arrest so as to determine whether any crime has been committed. Attorney Steven J. Topazio has the experience it takes to evaluate your assault and battery case from every angle. He has been successful in getting charges dismissed if at all possible, or getting them reduced.
Comprehensive Investigation and Case-Building
Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Steven J. 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 Steven J. Topazio online or call 617-422-5803 to discuss your case.
SELF-DEFENSE; DEFENSE OF ANOTHER; DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
A person is allowed to act in self-defense, even if he or she strikes or hits another person. Defending yourself or others from an attack, may be a defense to the crime of assault and battery if you act reasonably. A person cannot lawfully act in self-defense unless he or she is attacked or is immediately about to be attacked. This is known as reasonable apprehension.
Where use of deadly force is at issue, a person may still act in self defense if he or she uses deadly force. An individual however cannot lawfully act in self-defense unless he or she has exhausted all other reasonable alternatives before resorting to force. A person may use physical force in self-defense only if he or she could not get out of the situation in some other way that was available and reasonable at the time. This is known as the duty to retreat. Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Steven J. Topazio knows how to evaluate your case and to develop your defense.
Excessive force. A person cannot lawfully act in self-defense if one uses more force than necessary in the circumstances to defend oneself. How much force is necessary may vary with the situation. Exactness is not always possible.
Retaliation. A person cannot lawfully act in self-defense when one uses force in retaliation. The right to self-defense arises from necessity and ends when the necessity ends.
The “castle rule”: retreat not required in dwelling. A person lawfully occupying a house, apartment or other dwelling is not required to retreat from or use other means to avoid combat with an unlawful intruder, if two circumstances exist:
First, the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder is about to inflict great bodily injury or death on him (her) or on another person lawfully in the dwelling; and
Second, the occupant uses only reasonable means to defend himself (herself) or the other person lawfully in the dwelling.
Contact Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Steven J. Topazio, For Help Now
Too often people are arrested for assault and battery when a fight breaks out at a bar after a night drinking, or when physical contact results when a girlfriend accuses her boyfriend of infidelity. 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 617-422-5803 or contact us online.
RECENT CASE DECISIONS
January 20, 2012
Boston Municipal Court
Docket # 1101CR4444
Assault and Battery M.G.L. c. 265 § 13A
Disorderly M.G.L. c. 272 § 53
Common Affray
The client, a 23 year doorman at a downtown Boston pub, was arrested when observed by police punch a patron twice in the face knocking him to the ground after a night of drinking. Attorney Topazio investigated the case and learned that his client lacerated the face of the victim by punching his teeth through his lower lip. Attorney Topazio met with the prosecutor and attempted to resolve the case and address the Commonwealth’s concerns regarding restitution. Today, Attorney Topazio requested a lobby conference with the Judge in an attempt to resolve the case. A lobby conference is when the prosecutor and defense attorney discuss their case with the judge in an attempt to narrow the issues and to resolve their case. Attorney Topazio addressed the courts concerns regarding his client’s lack of control and alcohol use, and over the Commonwealth’s objection, convinced the court to allow his client to tender a plea of guilty on the assault and battery count only, with the other counts being dismissed. The court agreed to continue probation for seven months on the condition that the client complete an anger management program and undergo an alcohol evaluation.
Result: Client tenders a plea of probation for seven months on the assault and battery count only with the other counts being dismissed.
January 03, 2012
Fitchburg District Court
1216CR0008
A&B with Dangerous Weapon M.G.L. c. 265 § 15A(b)
The client, who was out on bail on a different case while under house arrest and being monitored electronically by the court, was arrested on a charge of ABDW after being assaulted by three individuals on New Year’s Eve. The three individuals entered the client’s home allegedly armed with knives and attacked the client. The client was beaten and thereafter fled his home and entered his parked motor vehicle and locked the doors. Despite the client’s actions, the windows of the motor vehicle were smashed and the client attempted to flee by starting the vehicle and attempted to reverse out of the driveway crashing into his attacker’s motor vehicle. Attorney Topazio took the initial phone call from distraught family members on New Year’s Eve and rearranged his schedule so as to appear at his client’s arraignment scheduled for January 3, 2012. Today, due to the new arrest, the Commonwealth filed a motion to revoke his client’s bail and requested that the Court hold his client for 60 days without bail. Attorney Topazio was successful in convincing the Court to deny the Commonwealth’s request to revoke bail and was successful in securing his client’s release for custody.
Result: Commonwealth’s Motion to revoke bail denied and Client released from custody pending trial.
December 28, 2011
Boston Municipal Court
Application for Criminal Complaint
Clerk Magistrate Hearing
Assault & Battery M.G.L. c. 265 § 13A
The client, a 28 year old college graduate employed as a business systems analyst for a Boston Investment Company, received an application for criminal complaint after punching a fellow patron in the face while in Whiskey’s Smokehouse Bar in Boston. Attorney Topazio met with his client and learned that the on duty manager from the bar witnessed the assault and battery and that the client admitted to the police that he punched the victim after he was grabbed from behind by an unidentified person. Attorney Topazio, in an attempt to resolve the matter prior to criminal charges from being issued against his client, (which would also prevent an entry on his client’s board of probation record, commonly referred as BOP or CORI), contacted the investigating Boston Police Detective and explained his client’s position and addressed any concerns the police or victim had to a resolution of the matter at the Magistrate’s hearing. Attorney Topazio further arranged to have the case sent to court sponsored mediation should the Magistrate require as part of any resolution. Today at the hearing on the application for issuance of the criminal complaint, Attorney Topazio was successful in convincing to the Magistrate, with the consent of the applicant, to deny the issuance of the criminal complaint thus preserving his client’s CORI.
Result: Case dismissed.
December 06, 2011
Chelsea District Court
Docket # 1114CR1915
Assault and Battery, MGL c. 265 § 13A(a)
Assault with Dangerous Weapon MGL c. 256 § 15B(b)
Destruction of Property MGL c. 266 § 127
The client, a 40 year old Iraq War Army veteran, called police to remove his girlfriend from his apartment after they got into a fight in which she scratched him on the back. Despite going to police, the client was arrested after the police spoke to the girlfriend and concluded that the client was the primary aggressor. The girlfriend alleged that the client was jealous of her and accused her of cheating on him after reading her diary. The girlfriend further alleged that the client threw the diary at her then grabbed her by the throat and began to strangle her. Attorney Topazio hired a private investigator to speak with the complainant in an attempt to pin down her testimony and further to cooberate his client’s version of the facts. Attorney Topazio learned that the girlfriend recanted her statements to police. After learning this information, and refusing to accept a plea bargain from the Commonwealth, Attorney Topazio continued the case for trial. Today at trial, Attorney Topazio moved to have his client’s case dismissed for want of prosecution after the Commonwealth moved for a continuance after announcing to the court that they were not ready to proceed to trial, and the court agreed.
Result: Case dismissed at trial.
October 18, 2011
Boston Municipal Court
Docket No: 1101CR5106
Assault c 265 § 13A
Assault and Battery c 265 § 13A
Resting Arrest c 268 § 32B
The Client, a 41 year old individual, had been arrested after assaulting his mother when he accused her of stealing money from him. The client backed his mother into a corner, then pushed his sister against a wall after she got in between her brother and mother and tried to make him leave the apartment. The Client, who thereafter fled the scene when police arrived, fought with police when he refused to be handcuffed, was held on bail following his arraignment. The client who had no family support and could not post bail, wanted to resolve his case prior to trial so as to avoid confronting his siblings and elderly parents. Attorney Topazio contacted the District Attorney to negotiate a resolution but was unable to reach an accommodation. The Commonwealth had offered a 2 year committed sentence upon a change of plea, considering the client’s record and long history of domestic abuse towards his family, and would accept nothing less. Today, Attorney Topazio convinced the court, despite the commonwealth’s recommendation for a 2 year committed sentence, to sentence his client to four (4) months in jail, followed by a period of probation.
Result: Client committed to four months and given credit for time awaiting trial and avoids a two year committed sentence as recommended by the Commonwealth.
.
September 20, 2011
Brookline District Court
Docket No. 1109CR0627
Assault and Battery c 265 § 13A
Assault and Battery c 265 § 13A
The Client, a 50 year old self-employed restaurant owner with no criminal record, was arrested when he slapped his wife in the face several times following a heated argument. The Client was also charged with striking his daughter, who came to the aid of her mother and was struck and thrown to the ground when she came between her mother and father. When police were called by the client’s son, all three witnesses told the police the same story. After photographing a large welt, bruising, and redness on the wife’s right cheek bone near her eye, and talking with the Client, who admitted to consuming alcohol, the Client was arrested for domestic assault and battery. Following his arraignment, the Client was released on personal recognizance and ordered to remain alcohol free and to submit to random urine tests. After failing to appear for two scheduled urine tests, the probation department sought a warrant for the defendant’s arrest and the Commonwealth moved pursuant to c. 276 § 58B to revoke the defendant’s bail due to a violation of the conditions of release. The Client, who appeared in court on his own, as his attorney was unavailable, had the misfortune of conveying to the court that he thought the matter of random alcohol screenings was funny. The court made written findings that the Client was not taking the proceedings seriously and revoked his bail for a period of 60 days. When the Client’s attorney failed to appear on the Client’s next scheduled court date after 32 days in custody, the Client retained Attorney Topazio. Attorney Topazio went out of his way to meet with the family who were now in crisis and Client, who was incarcerated, and rearranged his schedule so as to advance his new client’s case and to get him in court as soon as possible. Within two days of being retained, Attorney Topazio appeared in court with his client who now had been held 35 days in custody without bail. On his first court appearance, the Domestic Violence Unit from Norfolk County objected to any modification of the Client’s revoked bail status. Unfortunately, due to judge unavailability, the Client’s case could not be reached and the case needed to be rescheduled. Today, after being held in custody for a period of 40 days, and yet only 7 days after being retained, Attorney Topazio was successful in securing his client’s release, by persuading the court to place his client on probation for eighteen months, prior to the 60 day bail revocation period, despite the Commonwealth’s request that the Client not to be released but rather incarcerated and serve a split sentence followed by three years of probation.
Result: Client released from custody after a change of plea and placed on probation.
.
September 12, 2011
Cambridge District Court
Docket No. 1152CR1316
Assault and Battery c 265 § 13A(a)
The client, a 24 year-old male university graduate, employed as a financial analysist, was arrested for the charge of Assault and Battery. The Client allegedly got into an argument with his girlfriend and was observed by a witness who called police and stated she heard both parties yelling and observed the male pushing the female into the side entrance of the building across from where she was standing. Moments later, both parties exited the house, and she reported to police that they were still yelling at each other and they got into a parked motor vehicle. The witness stated that the male came around to the passenger side, and began to pull the female out of the vehicle, who was yelling “No, No.” Attorney Topazio initially prepared an accord and satisfaction agreement and provided a copy of the civil settlement to the prosecutor, An accord and Satisfaction Agreement can resolve a misdemeanor criminal charge, provided the complainant acknowledges in writing that she has received satisfaction for her injury, and then the court in its discretion, could dismiss the case over the commonwealth’s objection. Today, despite the executed Accord and Satisfaction, the prosecutor filed a Nolle Prosequi with the court dismissing the client’s case. Nolle prosequi is a Latin Legal Phrase, and is a declaration made by a prosecutor in a criminal case, meaning the case against the defendant is being dropped.
Result: Case Dismissed.
July 07, 2011
East Boston District Court
1005CR2010
Assault & Battery on Police Officer M.G.L. c. 265 § 13D
Disorderly M.G.L. c. 272 § 53
The defendant, a disabled American Veteran, was accused of stealing a piece of luggage at Logan Airport. When confronted by police, the defendant began to yell that it was his bag and that he had no identification when same was demanded. The Trooper again questioned him about the bag, and it was alleged that the defendant began shoving the Trooper and lunging his shoulder into his chest, was arrested, hired Attorney Topazio after being in default for several months. Attorney Topazio initially appeared in court and removed the default warrant without the defendant being held. Attorney Topazio next met with the Prosecuting Attorney and provided documentation about his client’s service in the Air Force and the circumstances of his disability. Attorney Topazio met with the Assistant District Attorney and pointed out that the bag in question did in fact belong to his client and that his client’s name was on the bag tag and computer print out. Attorney Topazio further pointed out that the Trooper created the situation which resulted in the arrest of his client. Today at a pre-trial hearing, Attorney Topazio argued for pre-trial probation as a way of resolving his client’s case. In the SJC case of Commonwealth v. Tim, T. a juvenile, 437 Mass. 592 (August 23, 2002), the court set clear limits on the use of pre-trial probation, stating that the procedures set forth in Brandano cannot be utilized to place a defendant on pre-trial probation over the Commonwealth's objection. The Court noted that, standing alone c.276 §87 does not provide a method for disposing of a case. Only when §87 is used in conjunction with c. 278 §18 (which provides for a continuance without a finding upon an admission to sufficient facts) can §87 be used as a disposition. Today Attorney Topazio convinced the Assistant District Attorney to agree to give his client pre-trial probation, and the Court agreed.
Result: Count for Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and count of disorderly conduct will be dismissed at the end of the pre-trial probationary term.
February 18, 2011
Chelsea District Court
1014CR4039l
Disorderly Conduct M.G.L. c. 272 § 53
A&B on Police Officer M.G.L. c. 265 § 13D
Resisting Arrest M.G.L. c. 268 § 32B
The defendant, who was represented by Attorney Topazio, was inside a Dunkin Donuts in Revere when observed by a police officer to have a nip bottle in her back pocket. The officer described the defendant to also be be intoxicated. When she was asked by the Revere Police Officer to turn over the nip bottle, she refused. The officer attempted to confiscate the bottle by retrieving it from her back pocket, but when he stuck his hand into her back pocket the defendant pushed the officer in the chest. The officer thereafter attempted to handcuff the defendant who resisted, and as a result was tripped to the ground by the officer for prone handcuffing. Attorney Topazio filed a Motion to Dismiss all charges, alleging that the officer created the scenario to arrest his client. Attorney Topazio argued to the court that the officer mishandled the situation and was unjustified in sticking his hand into her back pocket in an attempt to retrieve a nip bottle. Attorney Topazio pointed out that courts generally do not inquire into the competency or sufficiency of the evidence in support of a criminal complaint. Nevertheless, Attorney Topazio pointed out that a necessary element of a Disorderly charge is that the tumultuous behavior or offensive conduct of the defendant has to "serve no legitimate purpose of the defendant". Today Attorney Topazio convinced the Court that due to the officer mishandling the situation, his client was justified and had a legitimate purpose in protesting the male officer sticking his hand into her back pocket feeling her buttocks in search of a nip bottle. The court, over the Commonwealth’s objection that Attorney Topazio’s arguments were nothing more than trial defenses, dismissed all charges against his client.
Result: After hearing Motion to Dismiss allowed and all charges dismissed.
November 15, 2010
Malden District Court
1050CR0562
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon M.G.L. c. 265 § 15A(b)
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon M.G.L. c. 265 § 15A(b)
The defendant, was arrested after stopping a dump truck and kicking and hitting the driver with a chair, after the defendant witnessed the truck driver pick up his personal property and put it into the back of the truck, hired Attorney Topazio to represent him. Attorney Topazio investigated the case and learned that neighbors had captured most of the event on film. With multiple witnesses, and photos of the event, Attorney Topazio was unable to negotiate a resolution of the case with the District Attorney after a lobby conference with the court, and scheduled the case for a jury trial. Attorney Topazio filed several motions in limine on the day of trial which were allowed by the court thus limiting the use of evidence the Commonwealth had. A motion in limine is a motion made before the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may, or may not, be introduced to the jury in a trial. This is done in judge's chambers, or in open court, but always out of hearing of the jury. If a question is to be decided in limine, it will be for the judge to decide. Usually it is used to shield the jury from possibly inadmissible and unfairly prejudicial evidence. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on one court and guilty on the second count. The defendant now faced the possibility of being sentenced to 2 ½ years to the house of correction. In lieu of sentencing his client following the jury trial, Attorney Topazio requested that the case be continued one day so as to allow him to provide additional information to the judge who was now charged with the function of sentencing his client. Today, despite his client’s six (6) page criminal record and the request by the Commonwealth for a two (2) year House of Correction sentence, Attorney Topazio convinced the court not to commit his client to the House of Correction but rather to give him six (6) months probation with the condition of an anger management program. The Court agreed.
Result: After jury trial, the client is found not guilty on one count but guilty on the second court. In process of providing the court with an aid in sentencing, the sentencing of the defendant is continued one day to allow Attorney Topazio to provide the court with additional information. At sentencing the defendant receives six (6) months probation with an anger management program and avoids a committed jail sentence.
September 01, 2010
Boston Municipal Court
1001CR2572
Assault and Battery M.G.L. c. 265 § 13A
Pretrial Probation M.G.L. c. 276 § 87
The defendant, a professional tax analyst, was arrested on two counts of A&B after being witnessed by police punching two individuals in the face and knocking them to the ground, was represented by Attorney Topazio. Attorney Topazio learned that when his client was arrested he was walking with a friend, who happened to be Jewish, through the Holocaust Memorial on Union Street in Boston, when he heard two other individuals walking in the opposite direction make anti-Semitic remarks. When the defendant demanded an apology after identifying that his friend was Jewish and offended by the remarks, a fight broke out in which the defendant was witnessed by police striking the other two individuals. Attorney Topazio met with his client and realized that any admission or guilty finding would jeopardize his client’s job and future employment in his chosen profession. Attorney Topazio had his client obtain several letters of recommendation and evidence of accomplishments which he shared with the District Attorney in an attempt to resolve the case by way of pretrial probation. Pre-trial probation is a court-approved agreement or contract between the prosecutor and defendant before a trial or a plea of guilty. Under such an agreement, a defendant is placed on probation, in the care of a probation officer, for a certain period of time and under certain conditions before he is convicted of any crime. In return, the charges will be dismissed upon the defendant’s successful completion of his probation. If, on the other hand, the defendant violates any condition of his probation, then the charges will not be dismissed and the case will be placed back on the trial list and proceed normally. Today, despite the strength of the Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Topazio persuaded the District Attorney to give his client pre-trial probation in lieu of admitting to the charges and thus saving his record and career. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 276 Section 87, the court agreed with the proposed resolution and placed his client on pretrial probation.
Result: Defendant’s record and career saved and case to be dismissed after successful completion of period of pretrial probation.
June 23, 2010
Boston Municipal Court
1001CR0161
Assault and Battery on Public Employee, M.G.L. c. 265 § 13D
Resisting Arrest, M.G.L. c. 268 § 32B
Disorderly Conduct, M.G.L. c. 272 § 53
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.
Result: Charges dismissed and case closed.
November 17, 2008
Boston Municipal Court
0801CR7652
Assault and Battery, M.G.L. c. 265 § 13A
The defendant, visiting Boston, got into a fight while in Fanuiel Hall and was seen by a Boston Police Officer punching and knocking another individual to the ground. The officers radioed EMS to respond to the victim who remained motionless on the ground. The defendant, who ran from police, was apprehended hiding behind a trash barrel, hired Attorney Topazio. Today, at a pre-trial conference, over the objection of the Commonwealth, was successful in getting the Court to give the defendant a continuance without a finding “CWOF” with unsupervised probation. A “CWOF” instead of a guilty conviction protected the defendant’s criminal record as it is not a conviction under state law. The court additionally waived all fines and costs.
Result: Trial avoided. Defendant protects his criminal record and the CWOF will end as a dismissal provided the defendant gets in no further trouble.
Criminal Defense
Personal Injury
OUI Penalties
Personal Injury
Criminal Defense
