Domestic Violence Attorney, Boston Massachusetts|Massachusetts Spousal Abuse Defense Lawyer

Contact Boston Domestic Violence Attorney Steven J. Topazio,

Protecting Your Rights in Domestic Violence Cases

Massachusetts domestic violence cases feature a major difference from other misdemeanor assault crimes: the police must make an arrest if they find any probable cause to believe that the crime was actually committed. If you have been arrested for domestic assault or any other family violence charge, Contact Boston Domestic Violence Attorney Steven J. Topazio for a free consultation about your legal options.

What distinguishes domestic violence from other assault crimes is the relationship between the alleged perpetrator and the victim. While there is no doubt that spousal abuse and other instances of violence between family members and intimate partners is a serious social problem, it is equally clear that the laws that criminalize domestic violence can be misused to punish people who really don't belong in the criminal justice system.

For example, people involved in divorce or child custody cases will often be tempted to accuse the other spouse or parent of domestic violence in order to get a tactical advantage in family court. A heated argument can be exaggerated into a violent one — a push can turn into a blow, a slap into a punch, or a misdemeanor shove into a wall can be charged as felony assault with a dangerous weapon.

At the law office of Massachusetts Spousal Abuse Defense Attorney Steven J. Topazio, we use our experience with a wide range of domestic violence situations to help return common sense to the process. We can use a little-known legal tool known as "accord and satisfaction" to help avoid criminal consequences in cases where the complaining witness had no idea that calling the police could generate so much trouble. We can also help people accused of violating domestic violence restraining orders or probation restrictions against contact with particular individuals.

Comprehensive Investigation and Case-Building

For more information about our experience with the defense of felony and misdemeanor domestic violence cases in the courts of Massachusetts, Contact Boston Domestic Violence Attorney Steven J. Topazio at 617-422-5803 or email him to schedule a free consultation.

RECENT CASE DECISIONS

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.

November 09, 2011
Boston Municipal Court
Docket # 1001CR6424, 1001CR7562, 1001CR8232

Abuse Prevention Order M.G.L. c. 209A § 3B
Threat to Commit a Crime M.G.L. c. 275 § 2
Domestic Violence

The client, a 34 year old construction worker, was arrested multiple times for violating a restraining order and allegedly threatening his ex-girlfriend. Attorney Topazio challenged the Commonwealth’s evidence pointing out that several of the alleged restraining order violations consisted of unidentified third parties contacting the complainant. Attorney Topazio requested that tapes of the alleged calls be preserved and produced through discovery. Over the course of several months, Attorney Topazio prepared his case for trial. Today, after answering ready for jury trial in court, the Commonwealth answered not ready for trial, and moved for a continuance. Attorney Topazio objected to the Commonwealth’s request for a continuance and the Court agreed, dismissing all charges.

Result: All cases dismissed.

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
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.

March 03, 2011
Brockton District Court
1115CR0006

Accord and Satisfaction Mass. Gen. Laws ch 276, § 55
Domestic Assault and Battery Mass. Gen. Laws ch 265, § 13A

The defendant, a truck driver from Brockton, was arrested for domestic assault and battery against his girlfriend. According to the police report, after a verbal argument over household chores the defendant struck his girlfriend on the nose with his head causing a laceration and she bit his lip causing a cut. Upon police arrival the defendant was not on the scene. The defendant hired Attorney Topazio to defend him. Attorney Topazio met with both parties prior to the scheduled court date who wished to resolve their differences without court intervention. Attorney Topazio suggested that the parties enter into an accord and satisfaction which gives the court the power to take the case out of the hands of the District Attorney. An accord and satisfaction is a legal contract whereby two parties agree to discharge a tort claim, such as an assault and battery. Today, Attorney Topazio convinced the court to dismiss the charge against his client.

Result: Case Dismissed.

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.

July 15, 2010
Brighten District Court
Magistrate’s Hearing

Application for Criminal Complaint
Domestic Assault and Battery

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.

Result: Complaint dismissed and client maintains a clean record.

July 07, 2010
Boston Municipal Court
1001CR1211

Assault & Battery M.G.L. c. 265 § 13A
Possession of Class D M.G.L. c. 94C § 34

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.

Result: Count for Assault and Battery dismissed at trial.

October 29, 2009
Lowell District Court
0811CR6509 0911CR4955

Probation Surrender
Disorderly Conduct MGL c. 272 § 53
Assault and Battery Dangerous Weapon M.G.L. c. 265, § 15A(b)

The defendant was on probation for allegedly striking his son in the face with his belt, causing one of his teeth to be knocked out, hired Attorney Topazio when he received a Notice of Probation Violation and Hearing after testing positive for cocaine and alcohol, and for being arrested for disorderly conduct. On a prior date (see entry for September 17, 2009) Attorney Topazio caused the disorderly charge to be dismissed but still had to deal with his client's positive urine screens to avoid a violation of probation. Attorney Topazio met with the supervising probation officer and argued that the sentencing judge did not require that his client abstain from alcohol, but rather ordered that his client not engage in excessive drinking, which would not be a violation of his client's probation. Attorney Topazio scheduled his client's case before the sentencing judge for a clarification of the probation conditions and today, convinced the judge to vacate the testing requirement altogether. As a result, the Notice of Probation violation was withdrawn.

Result: Violation of probation withdrawn; probation renewed to its original date; and Defendant signs a new probation contract without the requirement for random urine testing.

October 09, 2009
Quincy District Court
200956RO0816

Restraining Order MGL c. 209A

The wife of the defendant recently filed for divorce and served the defendant with divorce papers, yet still lived with her husband. Prior to a hearing on temporary motions in the divorce case, the wife went to the Quincy District Court and obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order against her husband of 24 years. Ex parte means the wife appeared in court without giving notice to her husband when she obtained the temporary order. Prior to the hearing on the Permanent Order, the defendant hired Attorney Topazio. Today, after conducting a full hearing, Attorney Topazio, was successful through effective cross-examination in challenging the wife's credibility and convinced the Court that the actions of the wife to file for a restraining order were most probably motivated by a desire to get leverage in the recently filed divorce case and not because she was in fear of her safety. Through cross examination Attorney Topazio elicited testimony that there was no history of abuse, prior restraining orders or police intervention between the parties. Today Attorney Topazio persuaded the Court not to issue the permanent 209A Order.

Result: Permanent 209A Order not granted.

March 31, 2009
Framingham District Court
0949 CR 0105

Assault & Battery M.G.L. c. 265 § 13A

The defendant while dropping off her children to their father was arrested for Domestic Assault and Battery after allegedly striking him in the head and then allegedly being struck in the head by the father while in his automobile. When the police arrived, the parties were separated and interviewed individually. The police arrested both the defendant and the father after concluding that a verbal argument escalated to the point where the defendant hit the father leaving a visible mark on his neck when the father then struck the defendant in the head twice. The defendant hired Attorney to represent her in this case. After investigating the facts of the case, Attorney Topazio argued that his client had acted in self-defense after the complainant jerked the automobile causing his client to lose her balance and fall backwards grabbing at him for balance when she scratched him in the neck area. Today, at a pre-trial conference, Attorney Topazio was successful in getting the Court to dismiss the charges against his client after each party entered into an Accord & Satisfaction.

Result: Case dismissed.

November 21, 2008
Newton District Court
0812CR0819

Assault and Battery, M.G.L. c. 265 § 13A

The defendant while at home got into a fight with her husband called the police for assistance. When the police arrived, the husband and wife were separated and interviewed individually. The police arrested the wife after concluding that a verbal argument escalated to the point where the wife bit the husband leaving a visible bite mark. The defendant hired Attorney to represent her in this case. After investigating the facts of the case, Attorney Topazio discovered that the wife had acted in self-defense and bit her husband who had grabbed her and over powered her. Despite calling 911, the defendant was arrested after denying that her husband had assaulted her in an attempt to prevent him from getting arrested. Today, at a pre-trial conference, Attorney Topazio was successful in getting the Court to dismiss the charges against his client after informing the court that the husband was asserting both his marital privilege and Fifth Amendment right not to testify against his wife.

Result: Case dismissed.

print this page save to bookmarks email this link

Steven J. Topazio - Attorney At Law

Tough, Aggressive, and Experience

Criminal Defense

Office Location

Domestic Violence Attorney, Boston Massachusetts|Massachusetts Spousal Abuse Defense Lawyer