June 17, 2010

• Steven Topazio wrote this April 27, 2014 at 10:24 am

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.