Recent Cases

OUI-Liquor Second Offense, Resisting Arrest, Assault and Battery, FELONY CHARGE DISMISSED, OUI SECOND OFFENSE CHARGED AS FIRST OFFENSE

September 22, 2009
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Miscellaneous Municipal Ordinance 14-1
Resisting Arrest
Assault and Battery on a Police Officer
Client was followed by a concerned citizen as a result of erratic driving. According to the police report, the client was yelling profanities at several citizens and police. Upon an attempt to arrest the client, police stated she resisted arrest and assaulted an officer in the process. Attorney Barabino negotiated a general continuance for the assault and battery charge so it would be dismissed with no record. The OUI charge was given a First Offense Disposition.
Result: FELONY CHARGE DISMISSED, OUI SECOND OFFENSE CHARGED AS FIRST OFFENSE

Second Offense OUI, CLIENT GIVEN FIRST OFFENSE DISPOSITION

September 16, 2009
2nd OFFENSE OUI- Liquor or .08%
Client was stopped by State Police after swerving in and out of traffic. After he was stopped, the officer stated he noticed the strong odor of alcohol coming from the client's breath and that he was staggering. When asked to perform a sobriety test, the client stated, "He couldn't do it if he was sober." The District Attorney sought a deal which included the client admitting guilt, attending a two-week inpatient program, and serving a suspended prison sentence of three months in the house of correction. Attorney Barabino declined the deal and went before a judge and asked that none of the proposals the district attorney made be accepted and the client be given a first-offense disposition. The judge agreed with Attorney Barabino. Client's record will be dismissed if he complies with probation requirements.
Result: CLIENT GIVEN FIRST OFFENSE DISPOSITION

Abuse Prevention Order, DISMISSED.

August 31, 2009
Abuse Prevention Order
Client was a young woman who was accused of harassing her ex-boyfriend and threatening him. As a result, he obtained a restraining order without her knowledge, which is allowed under the law. The law also allows for a 10-day hearing to dispute the merits of the case. Attorney Barabino opposed the order and presented evidence with the client and supporting witnesses. After the hearing, the judge denied the boyfriend's request for a restraining order and the order was vacated in the client's favor.
Result: 10-Day Issue of Restraining Order DISMISSED.

Negligent Operation, Racing Motor Vehicle, Marked Lanes Violation, Speeding Special Regulation Violation, RACING CHARGE DISMISSED

July 8, 2009
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Racing Motor Vehicle by Licensed Operator
Marked Lanes Violation
Speeding in Violation of Special Regulation
According to the State Police report, the client was observed driving his Dodge Challenger sideways in heavy traffic, reaching speeds of 85 miles per hour. The officer further stated that the client and another vehicle pulled up side by side, slowing down and repeating earlier behavior. After observing continued fishtailing, sideways swerving, and apparent loss of control, the officer charged the client with the above charges. Attorney Barabino began negotiating with the District Attorney early in the case, since the act was supposedly witnessed by the officer. After a close examination of the language of the statute regarding Drag Racing, an agreement was made which allowed for the charge of Racing a Motor Vehicle to be simply dismissed, no payment required for civil offenses, and administrative probation for the Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, with assurance of dismissal if no further violations. In addition, no license suspension resulted from the client's actions.
Result: Racing Motor Vehicle Charge DISMISSED

Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle, CHARGE DISMISSED

June 17, 2009
Receiving Stolen Motor Vehicle
Client was charged with receiving a stolen motor vehicle after police made a random stop of the defendant while he was traveling with friends. The police knew the client, as he had been convicted of robbery years ago and other miscellaneous minor offenses. Once the vehicle was stopped, it was determined that it had been stolen and all the parties involved were subsequently arrested. At trial, the Commonwealth was unable to locate a necessary witness and the case was consequently dismissed.
Result: CHARGE DISMISSED

Assault and Battery, Intimidation of a Witness, FELONY CHARGE NOT GUILTY

June 2, 2009
Assault and Battery
Intimidation of a Witness
Client had been charged with Assault and Battery (misdemeanor) and a felony charge of Intimidation of a Witness. According to police and the testimony of the client's girlfriend, the client waited outside until his girlfriend came to the door. When the door opened, he pushed her and threw her into a table and a fight ensued. The complainant had injuries and was taken away in an ambulance and seen at the emergency room. During the fight, the District Attorney placed several witnesses on the stand that supported her allegation that the client attempted to impede her attempt to call police. After trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of Assault and Battery and not guilty of the felony charge.
Result: FELONY CHARGE NOT GUILTY

Probation Violation, Violation of Abuse Prevention Order, BOTH CASES DISMISSED, PROBATION REINSTATED WITH NO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

May 13, 2009
Probation Violation/Surrender
Violation of Abuse Prevention Order
Client was alleged to have violated a restraining order with his soon-to-be ex-wife. The defendant was charged with two separate counts of violation of a restraining order. In addition to being charged with the two separate criminal counts, he was also in violation of his probation requirement for a separate domestic abuse charge. At the trial, Attorney Barabino had the client's wife disqualified as a witness and as a result, both cases were dismissed. After the two cases were dismissed, the defendant's probation officer sought to have him found guilty and committed to a house of correction. Attorney Barabino moved for a hearing on probation, which was organized. After the hearing, the defendant was reinstated on his same terms, no additional consequences and no jail time.
Result: BOTH CASES DISMISSED, PROBATION REINSTATED WITH NO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, NOT GUILTY

April 1, 2009
Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon on a Person over Sixty (60)
Client was alleged to be harassing her grandmother for money. The grandmother pushed the client out of her bedroom, but the client attempted to force her way into the bedroom until the door smacked the accuser in the breast, causing her discomfort, in part because she had just had surgery. The accuser had been on the phone with another family member, and that family member called 911 to report the incident. The parties explained to police what occurred and defendant admitted to pushing the door into the accuser. At trial, the defendant's grandmother and mother testified against her, but a judge, applying the facts to the charge, issued a verdict of not guilty.
Result: NOT GUILTY

Illegal Drug Possession, Speeding, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALLOWED, CASE DISMISSED

February 10, 2009
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class B
Drug, Possession to Distribute Class C
Speeding
Client was alleged to be speeding when Massachusetts State Police pulled her over. Client admitted that she had an open case for drug distribution and was eventually asked to exit her vehicle. After she was asked to exit her vehicle, the State Trooper discovered a zippered bag that had more than ten twists of cocaine. After she was arrested, she was brought to the State Police barracks where a female trooper discovered that she had several bags of heroin in her vagina. Attorney Barabino sought a dismissal at the suppression date and his request was allowed.
Result: Motion to Suppress, ALLOWED. CASE DISMISSED.

Leave the Scene of Property Damage, Negligent Operation, CASE DISMISSED

February 3, 2009
Leave the Scene of Property Damage
Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Client was informed by summons that his car was witnessed leaving the scene of property damage to a motor vehicle and the client did not stop to provide his personal information. As a result, he was charged with the above referenced crimes. The only identification made of the driver was by a bar owner who merely confirmed the owner of the car but not the defendant himself. At trial, the Commonwealth did not have the necessary witness, and the case was dismissed upon request by Attorney Barabino.
Result: CASE DISMISSED