Recent Cases

Leave Scene of Property Damage, NO CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ISSUES, CASE DISMISSED

April 22nd 2013
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a hard working professional with no prior criminal record. According to police, they received a report that client had hit another person with a vehicle and left the scene. Client had no recollection of making any contact with any other vehicle. In fact, his recollection was an out of control woman yelling at him while he was parked at a stoplight, which he ignored. Prior to the Defendant’s arraignment, Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss with a memorandum of law. This motion was allowed and the matter was remanded back to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing at a later date. At the Magistrate’s Hearing, the Magistrate grilled the Defendant and sought yet an additional date to continue the hearing. At the second date, the state police and Clerk Magistrate both took notice of the Defendant’s lack of criminal history, the statements of the parties, and the insurance information declaring the woman was paid back all her out of pocket cost. The case was dismissed as a result. No record of the incident will appear on the client's record, anywhere.
RESULT: No Criminal Complaint Issues at Clerk Magistrate Hearing, CASE DISMISSED.

Petition to Seal, ALLOWED

April 8th 2013
Motion to Seal Record Chapter 276 Section 100(c)
Attorney Barabino succeeded in persuading a judge to dismiss Assault and Battery charges against a prominent and well-respected doctor some time ago. Client again rehired Attorney Barabino to petition the court to seal the matter. Today, Attorney Barabino persuaded the judge to seal all records of this case. As a matter of law, client may now truthfully answer on any job application that he has never been arrested for, or charged with, any crime.
RESULT: Petition to Seal, ALLOWED.

Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED

April 2nd 2013
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
Client was a father and hardworking employee of the US Postal Service. According to police, he drove his vehicle in an erratic manner causing an accident. After the accident, they alleged that Defendant drove away without giving his information to the other driver as required by law. After consultation and review Attorney Barabino and client sought a trial date with the expectation that a not guilty verdict would be the result. However, when the accuser failed to show up for trial, Attorney Barabino simply requested that the matter be dismissed, to which the judge agreed. Case Dismissed.
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, DISMISSED.

Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, NOT GUILTY, Second Offense OUI, ALL CIVIL VIOLATIONS NOT RESPONSIBLE

March 29th 2013
Leave Scene of Property Damage Chapter 90, Section 24 (2)(a)
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
According to police, client had rammed into a vehicle and left the scene of the accident. Police responded to the scene and immediately noticed, while on patrol, that the client's vehicle had damage similar that that which would be described. When police pulled the vehicle over they noticed paint matched the vehicle that was hit. They also noticed paint on the other vehicle and noticed that it matched as well. The police spoke to client and stated that his speech was slurred; he had to hold on to the side of the truck for balance; his eyes were bloodshot and glassy; his breath smelt like booze; and he was unsteady on his feet. Moreover, the client had Budweiser cans opened and unopened, strewn throughout the vehicle. Client simply wanted to gain his license back, but the District Attorney of Essex County sought jail time instead. The Commonwealth presented five separate witnesses. At sentencing, the DA requested this hard working single father be sent to prison for two years suspended and serve a full year committed in jail. In the end, the judge agreed with Attorney Barabino and denied the Commonwealth request. Judge simply placed the Defendant on probation with a brief 14 day-impatient program. All the civil violation were found not responsible and the verdict on the Leaving the Scene was a clear and resounding "not guilty".
RESULT: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage, NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL, All Civil Violations found NOT RESPONSIBLE. NO JAIL FOR OUI CHARGE

Possession of Heroin, MOTION TO DISMISS ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED

March 20th 2013
Possession of Class “A” Heroin Chapter 94C Section 34
Client was a very pleasant young woman from a great family. However, unknown to her family she had developed an addiction to heroin—a very powerful one for that matter. Attorney Barabino filed a rather obscure and rarely used IIIE statute. Under IIIE, if the Defendant acknowledges their addiction, enters and completes rehabilitation, the charge against them will be dropped. The court allowed the motion to be filed nearly a year ago and after one year of negative drug screens provided to the court, the case against the client was dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

Drug Possession Charges, Reckless Endangerment of a Child, CASE DISMISSED

March 15th 2013
Reckless Endangerment of Child
Drug, Possession Class B (Cocaine)
Possession of Class “A” Heroin
Possession of Class “E” Substance
Client was a hard working waitress who had been associated with drug use and abuse for some time. On the above date, she was charged with possession of Class A, B, and E drugs and Reckless Endangerment of a Child. According to police, they received a 911 emergency call that two people were badly intoxicated, and they were consequently dispatched to investigate. Upon doing so, they saw a man who appeared to be intoxicated and client who was seated in a vehicle. According to police, there was evidence they were about to shoot heroin with their child in the back seat. Attorney Barabino challenged the method and extraction of client as unconstitutional and after hearing testimony, arguments being made, and supported case law asserted, the judge issued a decision, which allowed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. Since the evidence was excluded, the case would be dismissed. Case dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

Disturbing the Peace, Carrying a Dangerous Weapon, MOTION TO DISMISS ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED

March 5th 2013
Disturbing the Peace Chapter 272 Section 53
Dangerous Weapon, Carry, Subsequent Offense Chapter 269 Section 10(B) & (D)
Client was a hard working electrician. He was charged with Disturbing the Peace and Possession of a Dangerous Weapon, Subsequent Offense. The second charge was required to be prosecuted in Superior Court and State Prison was mandatory upon conviction. However, the District Attorney allowed the case to remain in District Court and prosecuted it as a first offense. Attorney Barabino filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges in their entirety. The motion, complete with a lengthy memorandum of law and supporting affidavit, was provided to the court and a hearing was scheduled. After the motion, the court agreed that the motion should be allowed and the case dismissed. The District Attorney simply agreed to dismiss the Disturbing the Peace charge after the hearing.
RESULT: Motion to Dismiss ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.

Second Offense OUI, Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle, Two Counts of Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury, License Suspended, ALL CHARGES NOT GUILTY

January 29th 2013
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08% Chapter 90 Section 24(1) (a) (1)
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle Chapter 90 Section 24(2)(a)
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury Chapter 90 Section 24
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury Chapter 90 Section 24
License Suspended, Operating Motor Vehicle with c90 §23
According to police, client was highly intoxicated, and the evidence of the intoxication was clear. According to eyewitnesses, client drove into two other vehicles and then ran off. Moments later, eyewitness confirmed to police that the Defendant was the operator of the motor vehicle. Once police confirmed that information they questioned client, who admitted that she was intoxicated and that she was the driver of the motor vehicle. Client failed the field sobriety test and once at the station agreed to take a Breathalyzer test, which concluded that she was twice (.16) the legal limit. After several witnesses testified, the jury at trial deliberated and returned a verdict of not guilty of all counts.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL

Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury, APPLICATION FOR COMPLAINT DISMISSED

January 10th 2013
Leaving the Scene of Personal Injury Chapter 90 Section 24
Client was a licensed electrician who was charged with leaving the scene of personal injury. According to police, client was exiting onto a roadway when he struck a jogger with his vehicle. After contact was made, client undisputedly left the scene. Jogger was taken by ambulance to the hospital. At Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Barabino was able to provide perspective to all involved, which included phone calls, potential witnesses, and maps of the area to aid his client's case. Based on all the information presented, it became clear that client left the area, only briefly, and only due to the aggressive conduct of the jogger after being struck. In the end, no complaint was issued.
RESULT: Application for Complaint, DISMISSED.

Illegal Drug Possession, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED

December 20th 2012
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class D Chapter 94C Section 32C(a)
Client was a young man with no criminal record. According to police, client was in a motor vehicle when police approached and saw what they described as smoke emitting from the windows. The police searched and interviewed all the people in the vehicle. During the search of the vehicle, they discovered two scales used for weighing marijuana, and marijuana itself. The amount of marijuana combined with the scales and statements resulted in the arrest of client and another. A Motion to Suppress was filed and testimony was elicited from the arresting officers as well as the parties charged with this crime. After a hearing, the court took the matter under advisement. At the next court date, the court issued their ruling, declaring that the police acted unconstitutionally and that the evidence should be thrown out as inadmissible. As a result, the charges were dismissed.
RESULT: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED.