Winning Breaking & Entering and Home Invasion Cases
Massachusetts Breaking and Entering Defense Lawyer
In most breaking & entering or home invasion cases, unless the police apprehend the person in the act, recover stolen items from the accused or his residence, or beguile a suspect into confessing, there may be little compelling evidence connecting the accused to the crime. In short, while the seriousness of charges such as B&E and home invasion cannot be overstated, there may be reasons to be hopeful. An experienced Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer will be able to objectively evaluate the strength of the prosecution’s case against you or your loved one.
Though liquor stores, convenience stores, restaurants, pharmacies, small businesses and, increasingly, homes are equipped with video cameras, the quality of these video recordings is sometimes so poor that a definitive identification of the perpetrator from the video alone is not possible. In some cases, the prosecution’s case hinges on eyewitness testimony – and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, particularly if the B&E or home invasion occurred at night. The difference between an acquittal and a conviction will often depend on the cross-examination skills of the lawyer. In his best-selling book, Relentless Criminal Cross-Examination, Attorney Mahoney devotes an entire chapter to effectively cross-examining eyewitnesses.
Occasionally, the police will lift fingerprints from the scene of the break-in. As discussed on the fingerprint forensic page, the police rarely recover more than a partial fingerprint and the police “expert” is vulnerable to an effective cross-examination. Moreover, if the accused had been a guest within the home, we would expect the police to recover his fingerprints.
Retain an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer
Massachusetts Criminal Attorney Kevin J. Mahoney has successfully defended several individuals accused of breaking & entering, home invasion and trespassing.
Breaking & Entering Statutes
Breaking & Entering with Intent to Commit a Misdemeanor (G.L. c. 266, § 16A)
The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant broke into a building, ship, vehicle or vessel, and entered the same with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. A conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.
Breaking & Entering in Night Time with Intent to Commit a Felony (G.L. c. 266, § 16)
The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, at night, broke into a building, ship, vessel or vehicle and entered the same with the intent to commit a felony. A conviction is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years.
Breaking & Entering in the Day Time with Intent to Commit a Felony (G.L. c. 266, § 18)
The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant broke into a building, ship, vessel or vehicle, during the daytime, and entered the same with the purpose to commit a felony. A conviction is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years. If the defendant was armed with a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or assault weapon during the crime, a conviction is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than five years or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years.
Results
Commonwealth vs. D.M., S. Boston District Court
B&E – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
Defendant seen on videotape entering four different apartments, and removing various items, within same complex. Attorney Mahoney persuaded DA’s Office and Court to place defendant on pre-trial probation, after which charges will be dismissed.
Commonwealth vs. J.R., Worcester Superior Court
Arson – Dismissed
Arson – Dismissed
Arson – Dismissed
Arson – Dismissed
Arson – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
B&E – Dismissed
The Defendant was the prime suspect in a series of fires in the town of Clinton. Members of the Clinton Fire Department, Clinton Police Department, State Police, and Railroad Police descended upon the Defendant’s home armed with a search warrant. The police seized, destroyed or damaged the Defendant’s personal property. They attempted to question the Defendant, but he invoked his right to an attorney. However, when the police threatened to tear down the house and put his family on the street, the Defendant confessed to the setting the five fires. After a four month long hearing on Attorney Mahoney’s motion to suppress the Defendant’s confession, the judge ruled the confession inadmissible. On the day of trial, Mahoney filed a motion in limine, convincing the trial judge to rule that the prosecutor couldn’t introduce additional statements from the Defendant that had not been suppressed. The District Attorney’s Office was forced to dismiss all the charges.
Commonwealth vs. G.B., Framingham District Court
Home Invasion – Dismissed
Home Invasion – Dismissed
B&E – Not Guilty
B&E – Not Guilty
A&B – Not Guilty
A&B – Not Guilty
Assault – Not Guilty
Malicious Destruction of Property – Not Guilty
Malicious Destruction of Property – Not Guilty
Threats – Not Guilty
The witnesses testified that the Defendant and co-defendant forced their way into home #1 and threatened, struck the residents and broke furniture. The Defendant and co-defendant proceeded to home #2 where they again forced way into home, assaulted the residents and destroyed furniture, lamps and a vacuum cleaner before leaving. The Defendant and co-defendant were arrested as they drove away.
Kevin J. Mahoney is a Cambridge, Massachusetts breaking and entering defense lawyer. Call 617-492-0055 to schedule a free in-office consultation with Attorney Mahoney.
