Attempted Murder/Aggravated Assault & Battery
Aggressive Defense for People Accused of Felony Offenses
Contact Attempted Murder Attorney Steven J. Topazio
A number of different crimes are classified as felonies. Some examples of felony crimes are: murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault and battery, burglary, arson, drug distribution of controlled substances, most sex crimes (rape, solicitation of a minor over the Internet, child pornography) and larceny over $250.00.
Punishments for a person convicted of a felony can range from probation to lengthy jail terms. Some of the other consequences of being convicted of a felony that most people don't realize at the time of conviction are: loss of your right to vote, extreme difficulty in finding employment, the loss of right to carry firearms, etc.
Do not go to court without a lawyer if you have been charged with a serious felony.
If you are under investigation by the police, or believe that you may be facing criminal charges, it is critical that you consult an attorney immediately. Police officers use trickery and deception in order to persuade a suspect to cooperate and give a voluntary statement. Under no circumstances should you speak with law enforcement without an attorney. You should always contact an attorney immediately so measures can be taken to protect your constitutional rights, and your freedom.
Experience You Can Rely On
Attempted murder; assault with intent to murder; aggravated assault and battery are some of the most serious cases prosecuted in Superior Court where a defendant is exposed to State Prison time. These cases are prosecuted by the most experienced Assistant District Attorneys in the Commonwealth. Experienced prosecutors require experienced Criminal Defense Lawyers. Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Steven J. Topazio has more than 24 years of experience successfully defending the criminally accused. He has developed the knowledge and reliability to be one of the best lawyers to hire in these circumstances.
Assault with Intent to Murder (G.L. c. 265, §15)
To convict a defendant of assault with intent to murder, the Commonwealth must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant assaulted the alleged victim with intention of killing the victim. It is absolutely incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the defendant had a premeditated intention of murdering the alleged victim. Assault with intent to murder is a serious crime, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two and one half years.
Assault in Dwelling or House with a Dangerous Weapon
(G.L. c. 265 §18A)
To convict a defendant of armed assault in a dwelling, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon, entered a dwelling house and while therein assaults another with intent to commit a felony. This offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life, or for a term of not less than ten years.
Mayhem (G.L. c. 265, §14)
To convict a defendant of mayhem, the Commonwealth must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, with malicious intent to maim or disfigure, cut out or maimed the tongue, put out or destroyed an eye, cut or tore off an ear, cut, slit or mutilated the nose or lip, or cut off or disabled a limb or member, of another person. A conviction is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two and one half years.
Comprehensive Investigation and Case-Building
For additional information about Boston Criminal Defense Attorney Topazio's ability to protect your rights and liberties, contact his Boston office at 617-422-5803 or email him to schedule a free consultation.
RECENT CASE DECISIONS
November 15, 2011
Fitchburg District Court
Docket # 1116CR1998; 1116CR1723
Attempted Murder M.G.L. c. 265 § 16
A&B M.G.L. c. 265 § 13A(a)
Violate Abuse Prevention Order M.G.L. c. 209A § 7
Aggravated A&B c. 265 § 13A(b)
Witness Intimidation M.G.L. c. 268 § 13B
Malicious Damage to Motor Vehicle M.G.L. c. 266 § 28(a)
Arrest Warrant
The client, an 18 year old High School student, was initially arrested on domestic violence charges involving his girlfriend with whom he lived, hired Attorney Topazio to represent him. Prior to the next scheduled court date, the client got into another altercation with his girlfriend after which she applied for a restraining order. Attorney Topazio immediately obtained a witness statement indicating that the girlfriend was the aggressor and shared this information with investigating police. So as to prevent a warrant from being issued by police against his client, Attorney Topazio negotiated a situation whereby he allowed his client to provide a statement to police and to accept service to the temporary restraining order, in exchange for the police agreeing not to issue warrant for the client’s arrest but rather agreeing to issue summons to both parties as mutual combatants. After this event, the girlfriend alleged yet again that there was a third incident between the parties wherein she alleged that the client violated the restraining order by trying to strangle her the day before his scheduled court appearance, and as a result the client was arrested on attempted murder charges. In preparation of the bail argument, Attorney Topazio obtained cell phone records between the parties suggesting no attack occurred and that the girlfriend was making false allegations. Attorney Topazio also presented alibi witnesses at his client’s arraignment which called into question the veracity of the girlfriend’s allegations that she was attacked. Despite the Commonwealth’s request to revoke his client’s bail and to hold him on $50,000.00 bail on the Attempted Murder case, Attorney Topazio was successful in getting the Court to deny the Commonwealth’s Motion to Revoke Bail and further to get his client released from custody on the condition of electronic monitoring through the Massachusetts Probation Electronic Monitoring Program, and the Court agreed.
Result: Warrant withdrawn and client released from custody on electronic monitoring “ELMO Program.” Case pending.
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.
November 01, 2010
Essex Superior Court
ESCR2009-000347
Habitual Offender M.G.L. c. 279 § 25
Assault and Battery by Means of a DW, Victim 60 or older M.G.L. c. 265 § 15A(a)
Larceny Under $250 M.G.L. c. 266 § 30
Attempt to Commit a Crime M.G.L. c. 274 § 6
BE daytime with intent to commit a felony M.G.L. c. 266 § 18
The defendant, who allegedly tried to steal tools from an elderly man's pick-up truck parked at the Home Depot on Route 1 in Saugus, MA, was confronted by the owner of the truck, a 60-year-old male, who after coming outside tried to detain the defendant when he saw him trying to steal something from the toolbox on the side of his truck. The defendant, who was grabbed by the owner, jumped into his motor vehicle in an attempt to flee, and dragged the victim through the parking lot before the victim fell to the ground injuring himself. The defendant was arrested and charged with breaking and entering in the day time, larceny, attempt to commit a crime, assault and battery on a person 60 years or older, and being a career criminal, hired Attorney Topazio to defend him. A habitual criminal is a person who has a criminal record indicating a propensity to crime and is subject to harsher penalties. Being an habitual offender meant the defendant had been convicted and served at least two prior state prison sentences where he had received a sentence of at least 3-5 years committed to state prison. The habitual offender charge is an enhanced punishment statute which imposes mandatory prison time for the maximum term of imprisonment of the underlying felony. As a result, the defendant was facing a mandatory 10 year jail sentence for the crimes he committed if convicted. Despite the mandatory time, Attorney Topazio was successful in causing his client to be released on bail in lieu of being held in custody. Prior to resolving the case however, and while his client was out on bail, the defendant committed yet another offense originating out of the Boston Municipal Court when he was found in possession of multiple bags of heroin. The client was arrested and charged with possession of a class A substance with intent to distribute in a school zone. A school zone violation carries a two year mandatory jail sentence. Fearing a subsequent indictment, the defendant agreed to plea guilty in the Boston Municipal Court and was committed to the house of correction for two years. Today, just two weeks after receiving a 2 year mandatory house of corrections sentence, when the defendant appeared in Essex Superior Court where Attorney Topazio was successful in convincing the Assistant District Attorney and the Court to dismiss the habitual offender charge upon his client’s agreement to plea guilty on the remaining offenses to a 4-5 year state prison sentence, to be imposed forthwith. When a state prison sentence is imposed forthwith, the underlying house of corrections sentence is wiped out and the state prison sentence begins immediately.
Result: Defendant avoids a mandatory 10 year state prison sentence and accepts a 4-5 state prison sentence forthwith thus wiping out a mandatory 2 year house of corrections sentence after only serving two weeks of that sentence.
October 22, 2010
Boston Juvenile Court
Intentionally Omitted
Armed Assault with intent to Murder M.G.L. c. 265 §15
Aggravated Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon M.G.L. c. 265 §15A
Assault and Battery by means of a Dangerous Weapon M.G.L. c. 265 §13A
Assault and Battery M.G.L. c. 265 §13A
On or about February 19, 2007, the Transit Police Department began an investigation into the stabbing of an individual at the Back Bay T stop who had been stabbed 21 times. By speaking with witnesses and viewing MBTA video, Transit police were able to see a group of six to eight males run from MBTA inspectors. The defendant, a juvenile, who was identified as a member of the group, although not the stabber was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and assault and battery on a joint venture theory, hired Attorney Topazio to defend him. Attorney Topazio was successful in procuring his client’s release following his arraignment on youthful offender charges.
Juvenile delinquency cases are criminal cases where the offender is under the age of seventeen at the time of the offense, and after trial or following a plea, could be found "delinquent" instead of being found “guilty”. Instead of going to prison a juvenile can be committed to a "secure facility" within the Department of Youth Services. On the other hand, juveniles who commit serious felonies involving serious harm or the threat of serious harm to others can be prosecuted as youthful offenders. Once the Juvenile Court determines that a juvenile is a youthful offender the court proceedings become public and the juvenile can be sentenced as if he were an adult which includes exposing the juvenile to the possibility of a full adult state prison sentence, as was the case here.
Attorney Topazio filed a motion to dismiss attacking the grand jury indictment against his client. Attorney Topazio argued that the grand jury did not have before it any evidence of criminality by the defendant to support the indictments against his client on a joint venture theory for Armed Assault with intent to Murder; Aggravated Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon; Assault and Battery by means of a Dangerous Weapon and Assault and Battery.
In order to sustain a conviction under a theory of joint venture, the Commonwealth must present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant was present at the scene of the crime, (2) with knowledge that another person intended to commit a crime or with intent to commit a crime, and (3) by agreement was willing and available to help the other person if necessary.
Although unsuccessful in trying to convince the court to dismiss the entire case, today, Attorney Topazio was successful in getting the Armed Assault with intent to Murder; Aggravated Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon; Assault and Battery by means of a Dangerous Weapon counts dismissed and having his client found delinquent as a juvenile on the assault and battery count.
Result: Youthful Offender offenses dismissed and client avoids incarceration and an adult criminal record.
November 16, 2009
Chelsea District Court
0814CR1476
Probation Violation
Motion to Revise and Revoke
Aggravated A&B M.G.L. c. 265, § 13A(b)
The defendant who had pled guilty on October 5, 2009 to aggravated assault and battery as a result of causing a large laceration to his girlfriend's head, received a suspended sentence with the condition, among other things, of attending Level III of the Office of Community Corrections. In the early 1990's the Commonwealth commenced a systemic effort to provide for more effective and efficient criminal justice sentencing and specifically address prison overcrowding. As a result, the Office of Community Corrections was established in 1996 by virtue of Massachusetts General Law chapter 211F. The Office of Community Corrections is a division of the Office of the Commissioner of Probation. Community Corrections Centers are community based, intensive supervision sites, which deliver bundled sanctions and services, including treatment and education, to high risk offenders via Intermediate Sanction Levels. Intermediate Sanction Level III is an intense level of community-based, criminal justice supervision. Sanctions and services required at this level of supervision represent a daily imposition upon the liberty of the offender. Level III participants are required to report to the community corrections center for one to four hours per day, three to five days per week. Offenders placed at Intermediate Sanction Level III may be monitored via electronic device. Level III also requires random drug and alcohol testing, and attendance at one four hour community service shift per week. After refusing to attend Level III of the Office of Community Corrections, the defendant received a Notice of Probation Violation from his probation officer, sought assistance from Attorney Topazio. Attorney Topazio initially convinced the court not to hold his client on a probation detainer, arguing that a series of recent events rendered his client homeless and thus incapable of complying with the terms of his probation. Attorney Topazio met with the supervising probation officer and the chief probation officer and convinced them to modify the terms of the sentence if his client entered an inpatient residential program. Today, in order to avoid a final probation hearing, Attorney Topazio filed a Motion to Revise and Revoke the original sentence asking the Court to strike the requirement that his client complete OCC Level III and instead to complete an inpatient ½ way house program, and the court agreed.
Result: Probation Violation Withdrawn and sentence modified.
August 18, 2009
Malden District Court
0950CR0025
Assault with Dangerous Weapon MGL c. 265 § 15B (b)
Assault and Battery MGL c. 265 § 13A (a)
The defendant who was on probation was arrested for assault with a dangerous weapon and assault and batter after swinging a chair at an employee of a local café, then arguing with him, and then grabbing him by the throat, hired Attorney Topazio. Whoever, by means of a dangerous weapon, commits an assault upon another 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 jail for not more than two and one-half years. Attorney Topazio represented this client at the initial surrender proceeding an prevented his client's probation from being revoked. Today at trial, Attorney Topazio was successful in getting the Commonwealth to file a Nolle Proseque or (Nol Pros) causing his client's case to be dismissed.
Result: Case dismissed.
Criminal Defense
Personal Injury
OUI Penalties
Personal Injury
Criminal Defense
