Case Results Motions To Dismiss

GUN CHARGE AGAINST FREETOWN TRUCK DRIVER, WHICH CARRIED A MANDATORY JAIL SENTENCE OF 18 MONTHS, WAS DISMISSED AFTER ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN PROVES THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT THE GUN CHARGE

Freetown Police were called to a residence after receiving 911 calls reporting that the Defendant retrieved a firearm and threatened to shoot his brother and then kill himself. Others in the house reported that the Defendant was mentally ill and a drug addict. Everyone had evacuated the home when police arrived. Defendant was arrested and brought to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. Defendant admitted that he did not have a license to possess the firearm and further stated that the bought the gun off the street.

Result: Defendant was charged with Carrying a Firearm without a License, which carries a mandatory jail sentence of 18 months. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of probable cause. Specifically, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that it was not illegal for the Defendant to unlawfully possess a firearm, so long as the firearm was under his “exclusive control” and possessed by him “in or on his residence.”

OPEN & GROSS: DISMISSED upon MOTION
OPEN & GROSS: DISMISSED upon MOTION

A woman approached Hanover Police Officers at Forge Pond Park and reported two incidents where she observed a man walking on the trail and the man was naked from the waist down. The woman provided police with a physical description of the male suspect. The police placed a trail camera in the area where the witness reported seeing the male naked from the waist down. According to the police report, the camera showed a male party (matching the witness’s description) walking on the trail wearing no pants on two separate occasions on 03/28/16 and 03/30/16. Subsequently, police conducted a stakeout where they hid in the woods in the area where the male party was seen walking naked from the waist down. According to the police report, one officer observed a male party (later identified as the defendant) walking on the trail wearing no pants or underwear with his penis and testicles completely exposed and the male suspect was swinging his penis side to side with his right hand. The officers emerged from the woods and arrested the Defendant at gun point. At the police station, officers showed the defendant two pictures from the trail camera and the defendant acknowledged that he was the person depicted in the photos. The police charged the defendant with 3 counts of Open and Gross Lewdness. Two of the charges stemmed from the two separate occasions where the trail camera showed the defendant naked from the waist down on 03/28/16 and 03/30/16.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the two counts that were based on the camera footage of 03/28/16 and 03/30/16. Attorney Noonan argued that the offense of Open and Gross Lewdness requires that the defendant “expose his genitals to one or more persons” and the law requires that the illegal conduct occur “in the presence of another person.” Attorney Noonan argued that the two charges should be dismissed because there were no human being(s) present to observe the illegal conduct. Attorney Noonan argued that the only witness to the alleged offenses on 03/28/16 and 03/30/16 was the trail camera (an inanimate object) and not a human being. The Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan’s argument and dismissed the two counts that were based on the camera footage.

This Case in the News

Is public nudity lewd is no one sees it? Hingham judge says no. August 2, 2016 by Neal Simpson, The Patriot Ledger via The Enterprise. Excerpt: “The law requires that the person expose himself to a person – that there be a person present to see it,” Noonan told the Ledger. “What we have here is an inanimate object – a camera – and no human being there to see it.” “Judge Bradley agreed…”

Patrick Noonan Defends Man Caught Jogging Without Pants (Fox 25 News Video)

OPERATING to ENDANGER (sub. offense): DISMISSED

Defendant had a lengthy record of criminal driving offenses. In 2014, Defendant was convicted of Operating to Endanger after a trial. In 2013, Defendant pled to the charge of Leaving the Scene of an Accident. In 2011, Defendant pled to the charge of Leaving the Scene of an Accident. In this case, witnesses observed the Defendant’s vehicle peel out of a Bar parking lot at a high rate of speed. The vehicle lost control and went off the roadway into the woods. Defendant’s vehicle struck the guide wire to a telephone pole ripping the guide wire off the telephone pole. Defendant left his motor vehicle in the woods and did not report the incident to police. The following day, police contacted the Defendant. Defendant admitted to driving his vehicle off the road, into the woods, and leaving the vehicle in the woods without reporting it.

Result: If convicted of Operating to Endanger, Defendant faced a year-long revocation of his driver’s license because this was a subsequent offense. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to persuade the Commonwealth to dismiss the case saving his client a year-long revocation of his driver’s license. Defendant worked full-time as a construction worker. Defendant would have lost his job if his driver’s license was revoked for one-year.

OPEN & GROSS LEWNDESS: IDENTIFICATION SUPPRESSED

An identified civilian witness called 911. She called to report that she was driving home when her vehicle was cut off and blocked in by another vehicle. She claimed that the male operator in the vehicle pulled out his penis and motioned for her to follow him. She claimed that the male operator turned on the interior light, thrust his hips upward, opened his pants, exposed his penis, and proceeded to masturbate. She provided police with the make, model, and license plate of the vehicle. She provided police with a physical description of the suspect as being: a white male, in his late 30s / early 40s, with a long strawberry colored beard, and heavy up top. Police conducted an RMV query of the vehicle, which was registered to the Defendant. The Defendant’s RMV photograph matched the witness’s description in that the Defendant’s picture showed that he had a long strawberry colored beard. The police presented a photo array of potential suspects to the victim. She identified the Defendant’s photograph and stated that she was 100% certain that the Defendant was the suspect. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the procedure by which the police conducted the photo array. Attorney Noonan pointed out that the Defendant’s photo “stood out” from the other photos. First, there were substantial disparities in the age of the suspects. The victim described the suspect as being in his late 30s / early 40s. The Defendant was 34 years old. The majority of the photos were of males that were in their early to mid-twenties. Second, several of the suspects had skinny builds unlike the Defendant’s build, which was heavier. Third, the most striking point of suggestion was that only two of the eight suspects had long facial hair. Fourth, the photos that were presented to the victim were in black and white, not in color. In addition to the Defendant’s photo standing out, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan challenged the procedure by which the police presented the photos to the victim. Originally, police generated an 8-person photo array. However, when the police presented the photos to the victim, they mistakenly left out two photos, and the photo array only consisted of 6 photos. The victim went through the six photos and stated that the suspect was not in the 6 photos. Police realized that they mistakenly left the two missing photos at the police station. Police generated the same 8 person photo array and conducted a second showing to the victim. Contrary to standard photo array practice, police re-used the same 6 filler photos, which were already shown to the victim. Contrary to standard practice, the police did not shuffle the photos and presented them in the same order as they did the first time. The victim breezed through the first 6 photos because she had already looked at these same six photos in the first presentation. The suspects in the first six photos did not have facial hair. When the victim got to the seventh photo, she identified the Defendant, as his picture showed that he had long facial hair. Contrary to standard photo array practice, police did not show the victim the eighth and final photo. The last photo showed a suspect with a long beard. Other than the Defendant’s photo, the suspect pictured in the last photo had a long beard, and this photo should have been shown to the victim.

Result: At the conclusion of the hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the judge that the photo array procedure used by police was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification and therefore violated the Defendant’s constitutional rights. As a result, the judge suppressed the out of court identification from evidence and precluded the Commonwealth from presenting the victim’s positive identification of the Defendant at trial.

POSS. w/ INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED / DISMISSED
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE DRUG LAWS: EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED / DISMISSED

Three 17-year-old juveniles were arrested on a theory of joint venture to distribute marijuana. A police officer conducting patrol observed three males standing in the middle of the street and the police officer detected a “strong, distinctive odor of marijuana.” The officer stopped and questioned the three juveniles. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s client (Juvenile #1) had his backpack searched, which contained: a gallon zip lock bag containing marijuana, a marijuana blunt inside another zip lock bag, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and cash. The officer searched the backpack of another Juvenile #2, which contained: liquor bottles, a zip lock bag containing marijuana, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and a glass pipe with marijuana inside. The officer searched the person of Juvenile #3 and recovered four plastic baggies of marijuana. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress the physical evidence seized from his client’s backpack. Upon examining the arresting officer, Attorney Noonan established that: the officer seized the juveniles immediately upon approaching them; the officer exceeded the scope of the threshold inquiry because possession of less than one-ounce of marijuana is not a criminal offense, and social sharing of marijuana is not a criminal offense, and most importantly, that the search of Juvenile #1’s backpack was not justified as a lawful pat and frisk for weapons. The officer testified that he searched Juvenile #1’s backpack for weapons because Juvenile #1 had a knife on him. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan established that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would not fear for his safety – as to justify a pat-frisk of the backpack for weapons.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Suppress was allowed. The judge found that the search of the Juvenile’s backpack was unlawful. As a result, the judge suppressed all evidence seized from the Juvenile’s backpack. With all the drugs suppressed from evidence, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss all charges.

Docket No.: 1515 CR 4971

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION
MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was charged with four felony counts of Malicious Destruction of Property. The allegations were that the Defendant was terminated from the Company he was employed at for over 30 years. The police report alleges that the Defendant vandalized the Company’s outdoor air chiller unit on at least four different occasions. The company told police that the equipment was vital to the day to day operation of the business. The company alleged that they had to shut down production due to the vandalism. The company claimed that the value of the damage caused by the Defendant was approximately $102,000.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed. Attorney Noonan argued that the police report failed to present sufficient probable cause to support each element of the felony offenses.

CARRYING FIREARM while INTOX.: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to a restaurant for a disturbance. Upon arrival, police encountered the Defendant in the parking lot. Police observed that the Defendant was intoxicated and they placed him in protective custody. Defendant had a loaded and chambered .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol in his back waistband. Defendant also had another loaded and chambered 9 mm. pistol in a holster affixed to his belt. Defendant also had five knives on his person. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the complaint should be dismissed because the Defendant was denied his opportunity for a clerk-magistrate’s hearing under G.L. c. 218, §35A. The Commonwealth argued that the Defendant was not entitled to a clerk’s hearing because he posed an imminent threat to the public based upon the nature of the charge, the level of his intoxication, the fact that the firearms were fully loaded and chambered, and because he was affiliated with a notorious motorcycle gang.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed without prejudice and the Commonwealth must request a Clerk-Magistrate’s Hearing in order to pursue the charge.

BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED

Police responded to the breaking and entering in progress. Upon arrival to the home, police detained a man walking across the front lawn. The man confessed to breaking into the home to steal $10,000 and stated that he committed the crime with two friends named Kevin and Andrew. A short distance away, police observed two males walking on the sidewalk. They were identified as Kevin and Andrew and were placed under arrest as joint venturers in the house break. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that his client’s mere presence at the crime scene (without any other corroborative evidence of his involvement) was insufficient to charge him as a joint venturer.

Result: After Hearing, Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the felony B & E charge was dismissed.

NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client was charged with Negligent Operation stemming from an incident on August 14, 2014 in which a State Trooper observed his Mustang and another vehicle (Toyota) traveling northbound on Route 495. While the two vehicles were traveling on this major highway, the passenger in the Mustang and the operator of the Toyota were attempting to pass an object (business card) between the two vehicles by traveling side-by-side and having the parties reach their hands out the window. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss arguing that his client was entitled to dismissal of the criminal complaint because he was denied the opportunity of having a hearing before the clerk-magistrate.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and the criminal complaint was dismissed upon court costs.

DRUG DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOL ZONE: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, 27 year-old male, was indicted on Distribution of Class B Substance (subsequent offense) and Distribution of Class B Substance in a School Zone. A Brockton Detective was conducting an undercover drug sting operation in which he arranged to purchase drugs from the Defendant. The Detective testified that he arranged to purchase two forties of hard crack cocaine from the Defendant. The Detective testified that the Defendant distributed the crack cocaine to the undercover officer within 300 feet of the Huntington School on Warren Avenue. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss under Commonwealth v. McCarthy arguing that there was insufficient probable cause presented to the Grand Jury that the drug transaction occurred within 300 feet of a school zone. The Superior Court Judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion and the School Zone Indictment was dismissed.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and saves his client from a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 2 ½ years.

CARRYING FIREARM without LICENSE: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Police searched the Defendant’s home and found a Smith & Wesson 28 Special Revolver loaded with four rounds of ammunition. Defendant did not have any license to possess or carry firearms. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there is a “residency exemption” in the amended statute, which applies to those possessing a firearm while “present in or on his residence.” Citing case law, Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence showed that the Defendant possessed the firearm in his residence, which is not a crime, even though he did not have any gun license.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and he saves his client from serving a minimum mandatory jail sentence of 18 months.

LARCENCY BY FALSE PRETENSE OVER $250: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was alleged to have defrauded three local businesses by selling them false advertising space in a newspaper publication. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the victim-businesses did not “part with their personal property,” which is a legal element needed to support the charge.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and felony charge is dismissed outright. “Plymouth man charged with falsely representing college.”

POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED upon MOTION
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was alleged to have possessed Heroin and Oxycodone with the intent to distribute the illicit drugs. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that there was insufficient evidence of an intent to distribute the drugs, as the Defendant did not possess any accoutrements or tools of the drug trade. Attorney Noonan argued that the evidence was more consistent with personal use, as opposed to distribution.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and both felony drug offenses are dismissed outright.

POSSESSION with INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE: DISMISSED after HEARING

Stoughton Police were conducting undercover surveillance of a home known for firearms violations, drug violations, and overdoses. Stoughton Police followed a vehicle leaving the driveway of the residence. The vehicle pulled into the parking lot of a Gulf Gas Station. Stoughton Police set up a surveillance post across the street from the gas station. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant walk over to the vehicle that had been tailed by the Stoughton Police. Stoughton Police observed the Defendant walk over to the passenger side of the vehicle and engage in a hand-to-hand transaction. After observing the alleged drug transaction, Stoughton Police stopped the Defendant and conducted a pat-down frisk and recovered a plastic baggie containing 12 pills believed to be Oxycodone. After an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, Gerald J. Noonan and Patrick J. Noonan established that Stoughton Police did not have the reasonable suspicion necessary to stop the Defendant and conduct a pat-down frisk of his person. The court ruled that the stop and frisk of the Defendant was unconstitutional and suppressed all evidence, including incriminating statements made by the Defendant and all physical evidence found on his person (the Oxycodone pills).

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets felony drug charge dismissed outright for constitutional violations.

ASSAULT & BATTERY DANGEROUS WEAPON: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, with no criminal record, was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (felony) stemming from a verbal altercation with two women during which he struck both victims with an apartment door. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the felony count arguing that the apartment door did not constitute a dangerous weapon based upon comparative case law. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant did not use the apartment door in such a way as to constitute a dangerous weapon.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed resulting in the dismissal of the felony charge.

BREAKING & ENTERING FOR FELONY: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Client, a juvenile, was charged with Breaking and Entering with the Intent to Commit a Felony stemming from an incident in which he allegedly smashed the window of a vacant building an entered with another youth. Through a Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the juvenile did not have the requisite intent to a commit a felony therein at the time of the breaking and entering. Rather, the juvenile’s intent was to commit the misdemeanor offense of Trespassing at the time of the Breaking & Entering.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan gets aggravated Felony B & E charge dismissed and amended down to Misdemeanor B & E charge.

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE: DISMISSED upon MOTION
NEGLIGENT OPERATION: DISMISSED upon MOTION

Defendant was traveling on a secluded country road when he lost control of his pickup truck and crashed into a stone wall. Defendant admitted to drinking six Heineken beers at a bar and he failed all field sobriety tests. In pretrial proceedings, Attorney Noonan obtained a court-order for the prosecution to provide him with the booking video of his arrest and his color booking photo. The first time the case was scheduled for trial, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss because the prosecution did not provide him with the booking video or booking photo. The judge continued the trial to give the prosecution another opportunity to provide defense counsel with the discovery. Attorney Noonan subpoenaed the officer responsible for maintaining the booking videos and booking photos to appear at trial. At the second trial date, the prosecution did not provide the discovery to the Defendant. In his Motion to Dismiss, Attorney Noonan argued that the criminal complaints must be dismissed because the Commonwealth lost or destroyed exculpatory evidence by willfully disobeying court orders and dodging the subpoena.

Result: Attorney Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and all charges were dismissed outright by the judge.

LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED
LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED

Clients owned and operated a sporting goods store and purchased merchandise from a vendor in the amount of $9,626.65. Clients wrote several checks to pay the balance. All checks were returned for insufficient funds and the balance was never paid. As a result, the clients were charged with Larceny by Check. Patrick J. Noonan (then a third-year law student) filed a Motion to Dismiss (which was denied) on venue grounds, as the events alleged to have occurred did not take place “in the vicinity” of Bristol County but in Plymouth County. See Commonwealth v. Adelson, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 585 (1996)(discussing factors in determining vicinity in larceny by check case). Patrick J. Noonan then drafted a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the criminal court was an improper venue to settle the dispute, as the alleged victim had an adequate remedy to recover the monies owed in a civil action and failed to do so. See Taylor v. Newton Div. of the District Court Dep’t, 416 Mass. 1006 (1993)(noting that the petitioner, who was not permitted to file applications for criminal complaint, “had a right to proceed in a civil action.”). In addition, Patrick J. Noonan argued in the Motion to Dismiss that it was an abuse of process for someone to use the criminal process to collect a civil debt. See Carroll v. Gillespie, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 12 (1982)(defendant sought to use the criminal process to collect a civil debt). Lastly, Patrick J. Noonan argued in the Motion to Dismiss that the Defendants’ did not have the intent to permanently deprive the alleged victim of the money, as they filed for bankruptcy shortly thereafter and were discharged from all debts.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan’s Motion to Dismiss was allowed and all criminal charges were dismissed against his clients.

ASSAULT with INTENT TO RAPE: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to Middle-High School to speak with the Assistant Principal with regards to allegations of sexual assault in which six students reported to the Principal that the Defendant (eighth greater) had been touching and grabbing their butts and making sexual comments to them. This was described as a pattern of sexual harassment that had taken place over the period of months. One of the alleged victim-students told the Principal that the Defendant tried to put his hand in her pants. The alleged victim later told police that the Defendant exposed his penis and said, “I want to fuck you” and had touched her breasts on occasion. One witness provided a statement that the Defendant had the alleged victim on the floor of the locker room and was humping her and fingering her. The alleged victim resisted, tried to push him off, and she couldn’t breathe. The Defendant was charged with Assault with Intent to Rape and two counts of Indecent Assault and Battery. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed and argued a Motion to Dismiss the Assault with Intent to Rape charge on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support that charge based upon all the discovery that the Commonwealth provided and the evidence that the Commonwealth intended to present at trial. The judge agreed and dismissed the criminal complaint charging the Defendant with Assault with Intent to Rape. The Commonwealth was forced to proceed on the remaining two counts of Indecent Assault and Battery.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Assault with Intent to Rape charge dismissed against juvenile. “School assault prompts probe.”

HOME INVASION: DISMISSED

Defendant, and three other accomplices, was indicted for Home Invasion, Breaking & Entering (Person in Fear), Kidnapping, Assault & Battery, and Larceny from Building stemming from a daytime house break into a residence in Medford. Police were dispatched to a residence for a report of a home invasion. The alleged victim stated that one white female and three black males came into the home through the front door. He was thrown to the ground and beaten. He was punched in the face and head multiple times. He was choked to the point of almost losing consciousness. His hands were tied with an electrical cord. The invaders demanded to know where the money was. A written statement from one of the accomplices stated that the Defendant participated in the house break and was present inside the house during the invasion. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Home Invasion Indictment on the grounds that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon prior to entry or that he knew of the existence of a dangerous weapon at the time of allegedly entering the house. An element of the offense requires proof that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon at the time of entry into a dwelling house. Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 426 Mass. 391 (1998). Judge agreed with Attorney Noonan that omission of proof on this element required dismissal of the Home Invasion indictment.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan gets Home Invasions indictment dismissed, which carries up to 20 years in state prison.

RAPE OF CHILD: DISMISSED
INDECENT ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

The alleged victim, age 16, disclosed to her school that she had been sexually and physically abused by her step-father (Defendant) when she was younger starting when she was six years-old. The Defendant had been in the alleged victim life since she was five years-old. The alleged victim told the District Attorney’s Office that when she was 11 years-old the Defendant hit her in the face with his fist causing her lip to split open and that her mother and brother witnessed it. She stated that the Defendant drinks a lot of alcohol. She described an incident occurring a month before the interview in which the Defendant threatened to kill her. She stated that her brother was also physically abused by the Defendant and she observed bruises to her brother when the Defendant hit him. She stated that when she was 9 years-old the Defendant would wake her up in the morning when her mother had went to work and he sexually abused her by rubbing his hands and penis all over her body, including her chest and private parts. She stated that the Defendant would touch the inside and outside of her vagina with his penis and hands. She stated that the Defendant sexually abused her in this manner approximately 3-4 times a week over the span of a few months. On one occasion, Defendant caused her vagina to bleed. She stated that she did not disclose the abuse because the Defendant had threatened to kill her if she told anyone. Police interviewed the alleged victim’s mother who stated that she didn’t believe the alleged victim’s allegations. The mother stated that the alleged victim never disclosed anything to her about being sexually abused. The mother stated that the alleged victim is very destructive and gets into a lot of trouble. Police interviewed the Defendant who emphatically denied all the allegations.

Attorney Noonan filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars because the alleged victim waited approximately eight years to make this disclosure and the time frame of the alleged offenses was extremely vague. In addition, Attorney Noonan moved to dismiss the criminal complaints because the alleged victim failed to appear at the probable cause hearing and testify under oath concerning these allegations. The Court allowed the bill of particulars but declined action on dismissing the complaints. The court did, however, order the Commonwealth to advise defense counsel (by the next court date) whether the alleged victim would be testifying. On October 19, 2005, Attorney Gerald J. Noonan argued a Motion to Dismiss the criminal complaints arguing that the Commonwealth failed to advise him as to whether the alleged victim intended to testify and failed to provide him with a bill of particulars pursuant to the court’s order.

Result: On October 19, 2005, Rape and sexual assault charges are dismissed.

OUI LIQUOR: CONVICTION REVERSED
LEAVING THE SCENE: CONVICTION REVERSED

At 1:45 a.m., police were dispatched to an auto-body garage in Avon for an argument in progress as a result of a hit-and-run accident. Upon arrival, a witness stated to police that a blue pick-up truck struck his vehicle, which was parked in front of his house. The witness chased the blue pick-up truck to the auto-body garage. The witness observed three people sitting in the blue pick-up truck. The witness identified the Defendant as getting out of the driver’s side of the truck. The witness identified a woman as sitting in the middle seat. The witness identified the Defendant as the operator of the pick-up truck. Defendant was the registered owner of the pick-up truck. Officers observed that the Defendant was highly intoxicated. Officers immediately detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant’s breath. Defendant’s eyes were glassy, his speech was slurred, and he was very unsteady on his feet. The officer observed that the Defendant would close his eyes every 5 seconds, as if he was about to fall asleep. Defendant was arrested OUI-Liquor and Leaving the Scene of an Accident.

At this time in the 1980s, the District Court in Massachusetts had a two-tier trial system (known as the “de novo” system) in which a Defendant could choose to have a bench trial before a judge and, if found guilty, demand a jury trial on appeal.

Here, Defendant was tried before a judge and found Guilty of OUI-Liquor and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. Defendant was sentenced to 90 days in the House of Correction suspended for two-years, 14 days in an impatient treatment facility, and ordered to pay restitution. Defendant retained Attorney Gerald J. Noonan.

Result: Attorney Gerald J. Noonan appealed the Defendant’s conviction to the second tier of the trial system. Attorney Gerald J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss and requested an evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, Attorney Noonan called the Defendant’s wife to testify. Defendant’s wife testified that the Defendant was not the operator of the blue pick-up truck and that she had been the operator of the blue pick-up truck. The judge dismissed the criminal complaints against the Defendant, and his prior convictions were vacated.