If one person obviously caused another individual’s death through intentional actions, then the state may pursue murder charges. Even in scenarios where an incident may not constitute murder, the state may be able to pursue manslaughter charges. The maximum penalties for a manslaughter conviction include up to 20 years in state prison and $1,000 in fines.

Manslaughter allegations typically fall into one of two categories. State prosecutors can charge individuals with either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. What separates these two serious crimes?

Voluntary manslaughter involves overwhelming emotions

People sometimes refer to voluntary manslaughter as a crime of passion. Usually, allegations of voluntary manslaughter arise when unusual circumstances push people past their emotional breaking point.

A fight with a business partner that results in one partner admitting embezzlement might lead to the other lashing out angrily. The partner learning about the embezzlement might strike or shove their partner, resulting in a brain injury.

If an altercation becomes violent and someone dies but there was no intent prior to the incident to cause harm, then the state may pursue voluntary manslaughter charges. A scenario involving mutual combat where two parties agree to a physical fight to resolve a disagreement could also result in voluntary manslaughter charges if one of the two people dies.

Involuntary manslaughter involves negligence

Most cases of involuntary manslaughter involve people making unsafe or dangerous choices. Someone inappropriately handling a dangerous weapon might unintentionally harm another person, leading to involuntary manslaughter charges.

Generally, the state has to show that reasonable people understand the risk inherent in the defendant’s actions. The state could bring involuntary manslaughter charges against a driver who engages in unsafe behavior on the road. Involuntary manslaughter charges could also be possible if one person causes the death of another unintentionally during the commission of another crime.

Individuals accused of manslaughter offenses may need help responding to avoid a conviction, and that’s understandable. Mounting a thorough defense strategy can help people avoid a permanent criminal record for a violent offense.

The impact of a felony conviction extends beyond the criminal justice system, often affecting various aspects of life, including housing opportunities. One of the most notable effects of a felony conviction is the limited availability of rental housing. Most landlords and property management companies conduct background checks on potential tenants, and a felony conviction can significantly diminish one’s chances of securing a lease. Landlords may perceive individuals with criminal records as higher risks, fearing potential property damage, disturbances or illegal activities on their premises.

The Fair Housing Act criminalizes discrimination based on religion, race, sex, national origin, disability and familial status. However, it does not explicitly protect individuals with criminal records. As a result, some landlords may refuse to rent to individuals with felony convictions, effectively barring them from certain housing options.

Felony convictions can also impact an individual’s eligibility for public and subsidized housing programs. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) can assist low-income individuals and families through programs like Section 8 and public housing. However, individuals with certain criminal convictions, particularly drug-related offenses or violent crimes, may be ineligible for participation in these programs.

Overcoming challenges

Individuals with a felony conviction may have the opportunity to pursue expungement or record sealing. These legal processes aim to remove or limit public access to criminal records, effectively reducing the visibility of the conviction.

Individuals can also participate in rehabilitation programs and obtain relevant certifications to demonstrate their commitment to personal growth and reintegration into society. Rehabilitation programs can be related to:

• Substance abuse
• Anger management
• Vocational training
• Educational courses

Limited rental options, housing discrimination and restrictions on public and subsidized housing programs create significant barriers for individuals seeking shelter after a conviction. However, with access to legal resources and participation in rehabilitation programs, individuals with felony convictions can potentially work towards greater opportunities.

Reports indicate that the 58-year-old man and the 45-year-old woman had only married months before her death after dating for several years. News report regarding the recent indictment claim that the woman was last seen in her home on a day in mid-May. Authorities stay they discovered her body in a pond located near the couple’s home.

Police claim that the doctor admitted to involvement in her death. According to reports, the doctor told investigators that he and his wife were in an argument when she struck him with an object. He reportedly told authorities that he then began to choke her. When he realized she was dead, according to accounts provided by law enforcement officers, he allegedly put rocks in her pants and placed her in a pond; the medical examiner says that the woman’s body had signs of being strangled. Investigators claim that the man gave them directions on where to locate the body after waiving his rights.

People in Massachusetts and across the country who are accused or suspected of a crime, especially one as serious murder, may feel unprepared to face questions posted by law enforcement officers on their own. Fortunately, there are experienced professionals who can help those who are under criminal investigation as they are questioned. With such a professional on their side, those who are the subject of such an investigation often feel more confident as they respond the police inquiries.

At J. W. Carney, Jr., we understand that college isn’t just a time for academic and personal growth but also a time to make mistakes and learn from them. Taking drugs may be one of those mistakes and it is certainly not to be taken lightly. But we don’t believe a student should be kept from reaching their full potential because of one bad choice.

Our skilled team of attorneys will gather all of the details of your case and formulate a powerful defense. This is a serious situation, yes, but we believe a student who has made a bad drug-related decision is capable of learning from that mistake and staying on track to build a successful life. We approach each case with the personalized focus it deserves and will clearly communicate with you every step of the way to ensure you know exactly how the situation is progressing.

Your life should not be destroyed because of drug charges. You should be able to learn from your mistake and continue participating in your studies. For more information, please visit our drug crimes page.

Massachusetts becomes the eleventh state to pass such a law. Under the new law, which takes effect in 45 days, a family member or household member who believes that a person poses a threat to themselves or another person can file a petition with the district court asking the court to immediately suspend that person’s gun license and temporarily confiscate the all weapons owned by that person. The judge must hold a hearing on the petition within 10 days, giving both the petitioner and the person who is the object of the petition an opportunity to present evidence supporting their respective cases. The petitioner can offer evidence showing why the protective order should be extended for up to a year. The court’s ruling on the petition can be appealed by either party. The law contains severe penalties for violating an extreme risk protective order and for petitioners who have filed the petition merely as an act of harassment or who make false statements in support of the petition.

As might be expected, guns rights group opposed the legislation, saying that it merely took guns from mentally ill persons but does nothing to address the illness. The president of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association praised the law and described it as “another tool in the tool box.”

Time must pass before police and judges become familiar with the law and how it works in actual practice. Nevertheless, anyone who is charged with making a harassing petition or with violating the law faces serious criminal charges. Anyone facing such charges may benefit from consulting with an experienced criminal attorney for advice on accepting a favorable plea agreement or interposing an active defense.

The first important limitation is the requirement that no one can possess a firearm away from his home or business unless that person has a valid license to carry a firearm. The law provides for two kinds of licenses. A Class A license allows the holder to possess a firearm but does not allow concealment of the weapon. A Class B license allows a person to carry a concealed weapon. No Class B licenses have been issued since January 1, 2015, but Class B licenses remain effective until their current expiration date. Anyone who is convicted of carrying a firearm without possessing a valid license can be imprisoned for 2-1/2 to five years in a state prison or 18 months to 2-1/2 years in a state workhouse.

A second type of crime involving the possession of a firearm is the commission of a felony while possessing a firearm, rifle or shotgun. Anyone who is convicted of a committing a felony while having a firearm in his or her possession shall be given a mandatory sentence in addition to the sentence for the felony itself. The penalty is five years imprisonment in the state prison. If a person is convicted of committing a felony while in possession of a “large capacity weapon,” the additional sentence is not less than 10 years.

Violation of the state’s gun laws is a serious offense. Anyone who is charged with possessing a firearm without a valid license or using a firearm in the commission of a felony will, if convicted, serve a significant term of imprisonment. The advice of an experienced criminal defense attorney may be helpful in evaluating the evidence, forming a defense strategy and, under the right circumstances, negotiating a favorable plea agreement.

Hearsay is a statement made by a person while that person is not testifying as a witness at trial and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. The main purpose of the hearsay rule is to preserve the adverse party’s constitutional right to confront and question any witness call to testify against the party. A common example of hearsay is a witness who is called to testify that “Joe told me he committed the crime.” If Joe is not in the courtroom, he cannot be cross-examined and the statement cannot be admitted into evidence to prove Joe’s guilt.

The hearsay rule contains many qualifications and exceptions that are beyond the scope of this post. Nevertheless, some exceptions can be briefly mentioned. The statement of an adverse party is not hearsay. Some out-of-court statements are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement, and therefore are not considered hearsay. For example, “Joe told me not to tell anyone about the crime” is not hearsay because Joe’s out-of-court statement is not factual. The statement is offered to prove what Joe said because that statement may reflect upon Joe’s guilt.

A solid command of the rules of evidence is part of every criminal defense. Sometimes, the prosecutor’s entire case rests upon a single hearsay statement. If the defense can persuade the judge to exclude that statement, the entire case against the defendant may collapse.

The right of a criminal defendant to remain silent when questioned by police has been recognized for about 800 years, since the signing of Magna Carta in 1215. In Miranda, the Court held that the police were constitutionally required to advise the suspect of his right to remain silent and his right to be represented by counsel. Not every person questioned by police is entitled to a Miranda warning. A person questioned as a witness and not for purposes of imposing custody is not entitled to receive the warning. People being questioned in connection with a traffic stop are not entitled to the privilege during preliminary questioning.

A person can waive his or her Miranda rights if the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. The police must ensure that the person being questioned understands the warning and that any waiver is clearly expressed. Mere silence in response to a question does not constitute a valid waiver. In order to assert Miranda rights, the subject of interrogation must assert the privilege verbally and unambiguously.

Whether or not a Miranda warning has been properly given or properly waived can often involve careful factual analysis, including determining whether the suspect is fluent in the language used to provide the waiver and whether police used any form of intimidation to encourage the suspect to waive his Miranda rights. Anyone facing serious criminal charges may wish to learn more about the Miranda warning or any alleged waiver of the privileges it entails.

Source: Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, “The Rights of a Person Who Is Arrested,” Hon. Peter Agnes, Jr., accessed on May 12, 2018

A person cannot be convicted of a crime when the intent to engage criminal conduct was induced by the police. A person asserting the entrapment defense must show that he or she had no intention of engaging in criminal conduct before the police took actions to persuade the person to commit the crime in question. In other words, a person who had formed an intent to commit a crime before the police acted cannot rely on the entrapment defense.

In Massachusetts, courts have ruled that whether entrapment occurred depends upon the suspect’s state of mind. If the police brought about an innocent suspect’s disposition to engage in criminal activity, the entrapment defense will apply. If, however, the police did nothing more than set a trap to catch a person who was already disposed to commit a crime, the entrapment defense will not prevail. The police are prohibited from entrapping unwary innocent persons, but they can properly use undercover methods to gather evidence against a person who has already formed a criminal intent.

Making successful use of the entrapment defense is not always easy to do. Those who want to utilize this defense strategy should make sure they fully understand the law behind the entrapment defense and how it will apply to the unique facts of their case.

Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Criminal Model Jury Instructions, “Instruction No. 9140 – Entrapment,” accessed on April 29, 2018

The crime of “terroristic threat” is defined as the willful communication of a threat (1) that a rifle, machine gun, an explosive or incendiary device, a dangerous biologic agent or any of several other substances capable of causing death or serious bodily injury is present or will be used at a specified place or location; or (2) that an aircraft, ship or common carrier will be hijacked, thereby causing anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort.

The crucial element of the crime is the making of the threat, not the actual commission of an act of terrorism. Moreover, a person can be convicted of making terroristic threats indirectly by causing another person to do so. The penalty for the crime is imprisonment for up to 20 years in the state prison or in the house of correction for six months to two-and-a-half years, a fine of not more than $10,000, or by a combination of imprisonment and fine. If the defendant is found guilty, the court is also required to conduct a hearing to determine losses suffered by the institution or entity who suffered loss because of the threat. The defendant can be ordered to make restitution.

Terroristic threats constitute a very serious criminal offense. Anyone facing such charges might find significant benefit in consulting an experienced criminal defense attorney for advice on the facts and law of the case and the likelihood of obtaining a favorable plea agreement or acquittal.

Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, General Laws “Section 269.14,” accessed on Feb. 3, 2018

While the definition of the term may vary slightly from state to state, all definitions can be traced to the use of the term in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures of their property. To prove that the search or seizure is reasonable, the Fourth Amendment states, the police must typically have a warrant supported by probable cause.

In this context, probable cause means the belief of a prudent person based upon known facts. For example, probable cause for an arrest exists when facts and circumstances known to the police officer would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. An officer’s hunch or suspicion unsupported by facts is not sufficient to establish probable cause for issuance of an arrest warrant. Similar requirements apply to facts stated in an affidavit submitted in support of an application for a search or arrest warrant.

The application of the probable cause rule is similar in other circumstances. A search warrant must be supported by an officer’s affirmation that, based upon objective facts, the officer believes that evidence of criminal conduct will be found in the place that is the subject of a search warrant.

Appellate courts are often asked to review a lower court’s determination of probable cause in connection with issuance of a search warrant, a search made without a warrant or the arrest of a suspect. If the lower court’s determination is ruled erroneous, the evidence will be excluded and a conviction based on that evidence may be reversed. If the source of critical evidence is in doubt under the probable cause standard, a capable criminal defense attorney may be able to keep it out of a trial and thereby prevent an improper guilty verdict.

Source: FindLaw, “Probable Cause,” accessed on December 23, 2017

Both statutes are intended to provide information to the public about the residence and other pertinent information concerning a convicted sex offender after he or she is released from prison. Convicted sex offenders can face penalties ranging from a misdemeanor to a felony if they fail to provide accurate and current information to whether ever list they may be on.

The Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board is charged with preparing, maintaining and updating a list of persons who have been convicted of certain sex crimes in the state. The Board is charged with classifying offenders as

Level 1 – those offenders with a low risk of committing another sex crime

Level 2 – those offenders with a moderate risk of committing another sex crime

Level 3 – those offenders with a high risk of committing another sex crime

The Registry Board is responsible for determining the classification of each person on the registry and in making the information public. A person can challenge his or her classification by the board by following the procedures in the statute. The law also requires a registered offender to notify the board of all changes in residence, employment and similar matters.

The Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act was passed in 2006 to provide a consistent method of keeping track of sex offenders and to eliminate weaknesses in the nationwide system of state registries. It is a federal crime for a registered offender to intentionally fail to correct or update his or her SORNA information.

Anyone who is subject to either the state or federal sex offender registration laws may wish to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney for an opinion as to whether the application of the sex registry laws or a classification under such laws can be revised to a lower level of danger to the public.

Source: United States Department of Justice, “Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA),” accessed on December 9, 2017

The answer lies in the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence, a compilation of the law of evidence in the

Commonwealth as it has developed over time. Rule 404 deals with “Character Evidence” and “Crimes or Other Acts.” The general rule, applicable in both civil and criminal cases, is that a person’s character is inadmissible to prove that a person acted consistently with a specific character trait on the occasion in question. The same general rule applies to evidence of past crimes or other wrong acts. Evidence of a past crime is not admissible to prove the existence of a specific character trait and that the defendant acted in accordance with that trait.

Evidence of a past crime may be admissible for other purposes, such as proving that the defendant had a motive, purpose, opportunity or intent to commit the crime at issue. Such evidence can also be admitted to prove knowledge, identity or absence of mistake. The evidence of a past crime offered for any of these purposes must be excluded if, in the opinion of the judge, the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Also, evidence of a past act is inadmissible if the defendant was tried and acquitted of the crime.

A careful criminal defense attorney can use the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence to ensure that prejudicial and irrelevant evidence is kept out of the trial. Knowledge of the principles of evidence and their proper application is one of the hallmarks of an effective defense attorney.

Source: Massachusetts Guide to Evidence, “Sec. 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or other Acts,” accessed on Nov. 25, 2017

The case in question involved a defendant who assisted in the planning of a robbery but was not present when two victims were shot to death. The defendant supplied a gun and sweatshirts to the burglars. The defendant appealed from his conviction on two counts of first degree murder, arguing that the trial court’s application of the felony murder rule to him was overly broad and unfair. The appellate court agreed and announced new standards for application of the rule.

The court characterized the defendant’s involvement in the crime as being “on the ‘remote outer fringes’ of an attempted armed robbery and armed home invasion.” The court held that a charge of second-degree murder was more appropriate than first degree murder. First degree murder entails life imprisonment without chance of parole, whereas second degree murder allows for consideration of parole after 15 years of imprisonment. Rather than remanding the case for a new trial, the appellate court reduced the defendant’s sentence to two counts of second degree murder.

More importantly, the court ruled that in all future cases involving the felony murder rule, the prosecution must prove that the defendant meets at least one of three elements of malice: an intent to kill, an intent to inflict grievous bodily harm or an intent to act in a manner that creates a plain and strong likelihood that death or serious injury will result. This change in the law will undoubtedly be the subject of more appeals as defense lawyers will attempt to prevent the felony murder rule from being applied in cases where the defendant was not physically present at the crime scene.

Source: MassLive.com, “SJC ruling narrows Massachusetts definition of felony murder,” Patrick Johnson, Sep. 20, 2017, accessed on Nov. 11, 2017

Massachusetts defendants may also be subject to living with the stigma of being a convicted felon which can influence many aspects of their lives such as securing housing and being accepted into college. At Carney, Gaudet & Carney, we are dedicated to fighting for the best possible outcome in each case so that hopefully, defendants do not have to suffer these consequences. Our knowledgeable, experienced defense lawyers zealously advocate to protect our clients’ rights and quality of life.

Our Boston team works tirelessly to either get our clients’ charges dismissed or reduced, negotiate plea deals or win a not guilty verdict at trial. We have been defending clients charged with felonies such as murder, rape, burglary, robbery, terroristic threats or acts, aggravated felony, felony possession of a weapon, and felony drug charges in Massachusetts for over 35 years.

We also represent clients who are under investigation and who have cases in federal court. Our lawyers handle even the most sensitive, complex and high-profile cases. We pride ourselves on getting to know our clients, believing their stories and helping them to evaluate their legal options. At Carney, Gaudet & Carney, our main goal is to reduce the negative impact of criminal cases – both misdemeanors and more serious felonies – on our clients’ lives.

The four main grounds for appeal based on harmful error are that the lower court made a plain error, there is insufficient weight of evidence, there was an abuse of discretion and the defendant had ineffective assistance of counsel. To show that the court made a plain error, a defendant must show that there was an error affecting his or her substantial rights that was not brought to the judge’s attention during trial. Miscalculated sentences and penalties are a common basis for appeals based on plain error.

Insufficient weight of evidence refers to situations in which a judge improperly allowed or disallowed evidence into a defendant’s trial and, had it been properly allowed or disallowed, the defendant would have received a different verdict. DNA evidence is one way that this basis for appeal may be established.

Appellate courts may find that a judge in a lower court abused his or her discretion by making a clearly unreasonable, erroneous or arbitrary decision not supported by the facts or the law in the case. The federal guidelines help to prevent state biases from being unfairly imposed on defendants.

If a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to adequate representation and a fair trial has been violated, the decision may be appealed based on ineffective assistance of counsel. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his or her lawyer’s conduct undermined the functioning of the judicial process to the extent that the trial result cannot be relied upon as being just. Defendants seeking to appeal criminal sentences or convictions for felonies should seek the assistance of experienced counsel in deciding which grounds for appeal may apply to their case.

An accused will be found in violation of Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of controlled substances on or near school property if they are within 300 feet of a public or private preschool, headstart facility, elementary, vocational or secondary school or within 100 feet of a public park or playground between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and midnight. It does not matter if the school is in session or whether the defendant knew that he or she was near a school.

Those convicted of violating this section are subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison. They may receive a sentence of imprisonment for two to 15 years and additional penalties including a fine between $1,000 and $10,000. Anyone serving the mandatory minimum will be eligible for parole after serving half of the maximum term unless there are certain aggravating circumstances.

Aggravating circumstances leading to ineligibility for parole are if the defendant used threats of violence or was in possession of a weapon during the commission of the offense, someone else committed a felony at the direction of the defendant, the defendant intentionally distributed to individuals under the age of 18 or the defendant induced someone under the age of 18 to distribute, dispense or possess a controlled substance. Given all these possible penalties – a two-year mandatory minimum sentence, up to 15 years imprisonment, up to $10,000 fine and ineligibility for parole – possession with intent to distribute near a school zone is among the most serious drug-related felonies and it requires a strong defense.

There are four main grounds for appeal based on harmful errors – the lower court made a plain error, there is insufficient weight of evidence, defendant had ineffective assistance of counsel and there was an abuse of discretion. Plain errors or defects form the basis for a successful appeal when there was an error or defect affecting the defendant’s substantial rights which was not pointed out at trial. Plain error often occurs when judges miscalculate sentences; in that situation, the case would be returned to the trial court for re-sentencing.

A successful appeal based on insufficient weight of evidence is more difficult to achieve because trial courts are in a better position to determine the facts and assess the weight of the evidence than appellate courts. Trial courts typically review trial transcripts but do not hear testimony, see presentations of evidence or hear opening and closing statements. Therefore, appellate courts will generally defer to trial courts’ decisions regarding the weight of the evidence.

Ineffective assistance of counsel refers to a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to adequate representation and a fair trial. Generally, courts will hold that there was ineffective assistance of counsel if they determine that the lawyer’s conduct undermined the judicial process to such an extent that the trial court may not have produced a just result.

Abuse of discretion refers to the judge’s rulings. For example, rulings on sentencing in cases involving felonies, which can include fines, imprisonment or both. If the appellate court judge finds that the trial court judge abused his or her discretion and made a clearly unreasonable, erroneous or arbitrary and unsupported ruling, the case may be reversed. Federal crimes are subject to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines which were developed to reduce such abuse of discretion.

When appealing a conviction or sentence, a defendant is asking a higher court to review the decision of the lower court and determine if there was legal error. An appellate court judge will generally defer to a trial court judge’s ruling, however there are certain types of errors that may cause an appellate court to overturn a guilty verdict or sentence.

In order for an error to justify reversal, it must not be a harmless error. A harmless error is one that does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant. Except for mistakes involving constitutional rights, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the guilty verdict. If the error did involve a constitutional right, such as the violation of due process, the conviction is subject to automatic reversal.

A reversal of a conviction or sentence can be especially important to defendants who were convicted or sentenced for felonies which typically carry serious penalties. The four main grounds for appeal based on harmful errors affecting the substantial rights of the defendant are that the lower court made a plain error, there is insufficient weight of evidence, there was an abuse of discretion and that the defendant had ineffective assistance of counsel. These four grounds for appeal will be discussed in a future post.

Legal defenses may be claimed when facing charges of either burglary or robbery such as innocence, lack of intent and entrapment. First, defendants may claim that they are innocent of the crime. The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, a defendant may cast reasonable doubt upon the prosecution’s case and avoid conviction.

Defendants may also show that they were not able to form the necessary intent to commit the crime. Both burglary and robbery require specific intent, either to commit a crime once illegal entry into a building has been obtained or to take someone else’s property by putting them in fear. If, for example, a defendant could not form such specific intent because he was intoxicated, then the intent element of the crime is not met.

An entrapment defense may be used to show that defendants were pushed to commit crimes they otherwise would not have committed. This defense will only work if defendants can prove that they did not intend to, and would not have, committed the crime but for the entrapment.

Another possible legal defense to robbery is that of duress. To prove duress, defendants must show that someone forced them to commit a robbery against their will by threatening them with bodily injury or death. This defense is generally difficult to prove and rejected by many courts.

Possibly the most common defense to burglary is consent. To prove consent, defendants must show that they had consent to enter the property, therefore their entry was not unauthorized or illegal.

Which legal defense to assert, or whether to assert any at all, depends on the details of each case. Anyone facing burglary, robbery or charges for other felonies will need to consider the applicability of each legal defense to the circumstances of their particular case.