Patrick J. Noonan – Case Results – 2016

From left, defense attorney Patrick J. Noonan, shows East Bridgewater police officer Peter Belmore, a photograph. (Photo: Marc Vasconcellos/The Enterprise)
From left, defense attorney Patrick J. Noonan, shows East Bridgewater police officer Peter Belmore, a photograph. (Photo: Marc Vasconcellos/The Enterprise)

Free Initial Consultation to Discuss Your Case • Call (508) 584-6955

Criminal Defense Representation

The Noonan Defense Firm rigorously defends clients charged with any criminal charge so no matter where you are located in Southeast Massachusetts, expert legal help is just a phone call away. To schedule a free, no-obligation case review and consultation with an experienced criminal defense trial lawyer call our law offices at (508) 584-6955.

When you make the call, rest assured you have taken your first step to find out how best to confront the charges you are facing. You can also use our Free Case Evaluation Form to submit information about your case in confidence, or to request that we contact you.


2016 Recent Case Results


November 2016 Case Results


November 8, 2016
Commonwealth v. J.F
.
Brockton District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS CRIMINAL CHARGES INVOLVING THE USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON AND THREATS TO KILL DISMISSED AT TRIAL.

Client was picking up his girlfriend at her home in Brockton. Client parked his car on the side of the street and waited for his girlfriend to come outside. Client’s cousin was sitting in the front passenger seat and the client’s baby was sitting in the backseat. As they were waiting, a man and his wife were returning home and had trouble pulling into their driveway because the client’s vehicle was partially blocking their driveway. The man got out of his car and proceeded to yell at the client to move his car. The client backed his car up and the man was able to pull into his driveway. The man exited his car and proceeded to make his way to the side entrance of his home. When he reached the side entrance to his home, the man continued to yell at the client to move his car. The client told the man to shut up and go inside his house. The man then retrieved a wooden 2 x 4 and approached the client’s car while making threats. The man’s wife came out to stop her husband from getting into a fight. The client and his cousin exited the car and an argument ensued. During the argument, a glass bottle was thrown at the man and his wife. The glass bottle struck the wife on the leg and then smashed on the ground. The man then picked up a rock and threw it at the client’s windshield shattering the glass. Everyone was yelling threats at each other. The wife reported to police that the client threatened to shoot them. The wife reported to police that the client threw the bottle at her. The client was charged with Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon for having allegedly thrown the glass bottle at the wife. The client was charged with Threats to Commit Murder for allegedly threatening to shoot them.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Noonan notified the District Attorney that he would be introducing “third-party culprit” evidence at trial. Specifically, Attorney Noonan notified the DA that he would be introducing evidence that the client’s cousin was the person who threw the bottle. On the day of trial, the man who threw the rock at the client’s car invoked his Fifth Amendment Privilege and opted not to testify against the client. The man’s wife failed to appear at the trial. Because the man invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege, because the man’s wife failed to appear at trial, and based on the third-party culprit evidence, the DA decided to dismiss all charges.


October 2016 Case Results


October 26, 2016
Commonwealth v. H.Q.
Hingham District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN SUPPRESSES INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS HIS CLIENT MADE TO POLICE.

Police responded to the scene of a single car crash where a vehicle was 300 feet off the road, rolled over, and overturned in an embankment. At the scene were the 18-year-old defendant, her father, and stepmother. The officer questioned the defendant’s father who stated that his daughter was the driver. The officer then questioned the defendant who admitted to being the driver. The officer observed that the defendant smelled of alcohol. The officer observed that the defendant was injured and requested an ambulance. The defendant was placed in a stretcher and loaded in the back of the ambulance. Inside the ambulance, the officer proceeded to question the defendant about her consumption of alcohol. The officer did not read the defendant her Miranda warnings. The defendant made incriminating statements to the officer where she admitted to consuming alcohol. Based, in large part on the defendant’s incriminating statements, the officer charged the defendant with Operating under the Influence of Alcohol.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved to suppress the incriminating statements his client made to the police officer inside the ambulance. Attorney Noonan argued that the officer failed to read the defendant her Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are necessary when one is subject to “custodial interrogation.” Custodial interrogation is questioning by law enforcement officers while a person is in custody or deprived of his or her freedom in any significant way. At the hearing, Attorney Noonan proved that the statements his client made to the police officer inside the ambulance were the product of “custodial interrogation.” As a result, all incriminating statements made by the defendant to the police officer inside the ambulance were suppressed from evidence.


October 18, 2016
Commonwealth v. N.V
.
New Bedford District Court

ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN GETS HIS CLIENT PRETRIAL PROBATION FOR 2 FELONY DRUG OFFENSES, WHICH WILL BE DISMISSED IN ONE-YEAR IF THE CLIENT STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE AND THE RECORD WILL SHOW THAT THE CLIENT DID NOT ADMIT TO ANY WRONGDOING.

Client was the target of an investigation for distributing heroin from her home. A confidential informant (CI) reported to police that the CI has purchased heroin and continues to purchase heroin from the client. The CI told police that, on several occasions, the CI would purchase the heroin from the client and pick up the drugs at the client’s home. The CI participated in a “controlled buy” in which police had the CI contact the client by phone and arrange for the purchase of heroin from client. Police conducted surveillance and observed the CI contact the client by phone, arrange for the purchase of heroin, and followed the CI to the client’s home where the CI purchased the heroin from the client. Based upon this information, police obtained a search warrant of the client’s home. Police executed the search warrant and recovered the following from the client’s home: 2.5 grams of Fentanyl, 9 tabs of Klonopin, 4 grams of cocaine, a scale, and currency. The client was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Class B (Cocaine) and Possession with Intent to Distribute Class C (Klonopin).

Result: On the first court date, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to persuade the District Attorney’s Office to give his client the very favorable disposition known as Pretrial Probation. With pretrial probation, the client did not have to admit any guilt. The client was placed on probation for one year with just one condition; do not get arrested for any other crimes. If the client stays out of trouble for one year, the felony drug charges will be dismissed. In any future criminal proceedings, this case cannot be used against the client, as there was no finding of guilt.


October 12, 2016
Commonwealth v. Juvenile
Brockton Juvenile Court

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST STATE CHAMPION HOCKEY PLAYER AND HONOR STUDENT FOR USING FAKE I.D. TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL DISMISSED AT CLERK’S HEARING

Client, 17-year-old high school senior, was charged with using a fake I.D. to purchase alcohol at a liquor store. Massachusetts General Law Chapter 90, § 8H prohibits the use of forged identification cards.

Result: At a Clerk Magistrate Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Clerk-Magistrate and the Police Prosecutor to dismiss the criminal complaint against his 17 year-old client. Client was a senior in high school. He was a member of the National Honor Society. He is graduating in the top 15% of his class. He scored 1340 on his SATs. He was the Captain of a junior hockey team that won the State Championship. Client is applying to several top colleges and universities in New England. Because the criminal complaint was dismissed at the Clerk’s Hearing, the client has a clean criminal record.

Having a criminal record poses a serious problem for students applying for admission to colleges and universities. The Common Application used by more than 600 institutions asks students certain questions about their criminal history. However, the U.S. Department of Education is urging schools to remove questions about a student’s criminal record in the early stages of college applications. The Common Application for the upcoming school year will still ask whether students have been found guilty of a misdemeanor or felony but will remove part of the question asking about any other crimes. “The Common Application used for college admissions at more than 600 institutions is changing a question it asks about students criminal records, as the U.S. Department of Education urges schools to drop the question altogether.” Christine Armario, Associated Press (2016)


October 11, 2016
Commonwealth v. J.R.
Woburn District Court

FELONY GUN CHARGE AGAINST ASPIRING POLICE OFFICER DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT.

Client, 36 year-old man, had a valid License to Carry Firearms, including large capacity firearms. After finishing a day’s work as a Foreman for an Asphalt Company, client discovered that his handgun was stolen from his work truck. Client immediately went to the police station to report the theft of his firearm. Client spoke to the police officer in the lobby of the police station for approximately three minutes. After their brief discussion, the officer informed the client that he would be charging him with Improper Storage of a Firearm, a felony charge because the firearm was large capacity. Client had taken police entrance exams in New Hampshire and the Civil Service Exam in Massachusetts. Client was offered full-time positions as a police officer by several New Hampshire Police Departments. However, the client had his sights set on becoming a police officer in the town where he has long resided. The client had fulfilled the majority of the requirements to become a police officer in his home town. The client was in the process of finishing the rest of his requirements when this criminal complaint was filed against him.

Result: Prior to his arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented the Commonwealth with evidence that his client had his firearm properly locked in a secured container, as required by law. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan had two witnesses who were willing to testify that the client routinely stored his firearm in a metal box secured with a latch and key lock. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan pointed out that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove their case at trial. The offense of Improper Storage of a Firearm (G.L. c. 140, §131L) requires that the Commonwealth prove that the alleged firearm meets the definitional requirements of a firearm. Specifically, the Commonwealth must prove that the alleged firearm was a working firearm. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan pointed out that the Commonwealth would be unable to prove that the alleged firearm at issue met the definition of a firearm (i.e., that it was a working firearm) because the firearm was missing. After considering the evidence and arguments raised by Attorney Patrick J. Noonan, the Commonwealth dismissed the felony gun charge prior to arraignment. As a result, the client is now free to continue his pursuit of becoming a police officer.


September 2016 Case Results


September 22, 2016
Commonwealth v. L.Z.
Stoughton District Court

CRIMINAL HARASSMENT CHARGE SEALED FROM REGISTERED NURSE’S RECORD

Client was in a tumultuous relationship with a man who had been cheating on her with several other women. Client’s ex-boyfriend obtained a Harassment Prevention Order (restraining order) against her. The client did not retain an attorney nor contest the restraining order. On the day she was served with the restraining order, the client admitted to police that she violated it by making a phone call to her ex-boyfriend’s current girlfriend. As a result, client was charged with Violation of a Harassment Prevention Order. The client was given a disposition known as Pretrial Probation and her case was dismissed after six months. After her criminal case was dismissed, client retained Attorney Patrick J. Noonan to seal her criminal record. The client was a 52 year-old woman with no other criminal record. She was a Registered Nurse and worked as a Staff Nurse for Children’s Hospital for 30 years. She was named runner-up by the Boston Globe for Nurse of the Year. She made a terminal ill child’s dream of speaking to Ellen DeGeneres come true. When her criminal case was pending, the client left Children’s Hospital. After her criminal case was dismissed, the client applied for over 100 jobs in the nursing field without any success. It was clear that the client’s criminal record was preventing her from getting a job in the nursing field even though she was highly qualified and had a stellar work history. Attorney Noonan filed a Motion to Seal the Client’s Criminal Record pursuant to G.L. c. 276, §100C.

Result: After a hearing in which Attorney Patrick J. Noonan presented compelling evidence, the judge issued an order sealing the client’s criminal record.


September 8, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.O
.
Dedham District Court

DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY CHARGE AGAINST ELDERLY, DISABLED MAN DISMISSED BY COMMONWEALTH DURING TRIAL

Client, 72-year-old man, was in a relationship with his girlfriend for 40 years. On one night, the client’s girlfriend called 911 and reported that she was physically assaulted by her boyfriend. She told police that the client had sucker-punched her in the face several times. She alleged that she locked herself in her bedroom after being chased by the client. She claimed that the client was banging on her bedroom door with a 6-foot wooden club. She took out a restraining order in which she alleged that she was afraid that the defendant would beat her to death with the wooden club. Prior to the trial, the girlfriend provided the District Attorney with photos showing scratches and marks to her face, as well as damage to her bedroom door.

Result: Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that the girlfriend was recently charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon stemming from an incident in which she threw hot coffee at two Dunkin Donut employees. The Commonwealth dismissed this charge against the girlfriend. In a prior hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan asked the girlfriend if she threw the hot coffee at the employees and she vehemently denied doing so. At the start of the trial, Attorney Noonan filed a Motion in Limine to admit evidence of the hot coffee incident. Attorney Noonan argued that the girlfriend’s violent actions in throwing the hot coffee at the unsuspecting employees were relevant to show that she was the first aggressor and that she attacked the client. After a hearing, the judge allowed Attorney Noonan’s Motion. Anticipating that the girlfriend would once again deny throwing the hot coffee, Attorney Noonan had a witness ready to testify that he was standing in line and saw her throw the hot coffee at the two employees. The Judge allowed Attorney Noonan to call this witness and have him testify to the hot coffee incident. As we were getting ready to empanel a jury, the girlfriend opted not to take the witness stand and she invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. As a result, the Commonwealth had to dismiss the case.


August 2016 Case Results


August 12, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.B.
Brockton District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE of FIREARM: DISMISSED

Police were dispatched to the Defendant’s residence in response to a 911 call. Upon arrival, police spoke to the Defendant’s brother-in-law who reported that he received a call from the Defendant’s wife telling him that the Defendant was highly intoxicated and she needed help. They wanted to bring the Defendant to the hospital so he could receive treatment for his substance abuse issues. Defendant refused and became argumentative. Prior to the police arriving, Defendant fled from the house. Police were concerned because the Defendant was wearing only a T-shirt and shorts and it was freezing outside. Later, police observed the Defendant fighting with his brother-in-law in the street. The fight caused a disturbance in the neighborhood. After breaking up the fight, police arrested the Defendant for Disturbing the Peace. After his arrest, police received information that some of the Defendant’s firearms may have been missing from his gun locker. The Defendant’s wife directed officers into the basement of their home and gave them permission to search the Defendant’s gun locker. The police observed that the gun locker was partially open and not locked. Due to the locker not being securely locked, police charged the Defendant with Improper Storage of a Firearm and seized all his firearms, which included: six rifles, two shotguns, and ammunition.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Suppress arguing that the Defendant’s wife did not have lawful authority to give police consent to search the Defendant’s private property. The hearing on the Motion to Suppress was continued. Prior to the next scheduled hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the Improper Storage of a Firearm.


July 2016 Case Results


July 19, 2016
Commonwealth v. David A.
Brockton District Court

OUI-SERIOUS BODILY INJURY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL (lack of evidence)

Defendant was alleged to have caused a major motor vehicle accident resulting in serious injuries to his passenger and himself. Defendant was driving a vehicle on Route 24 South with a female passenger in the front seat. Witnesses told police that they saw the vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed and abruptly swerve into the Burger King rest area and then crash into the rear of a parked 18-wheel tractor-trailer. The vehicle was completely crushed and lodged underneath the rear of the tractor-trailer. Upon arrival, Defendant and the passenger were unconscious and unresponsive. As the Defendant was unconscious in the driver’s seat, police officers detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from him. The Defendant and the female passenger were taken by helicopter to the Rhode Island Hospital. The female passenger remained in the hospital for nearly one month. She sustained serious bodily injuries, including: partial blindness in one eye, head trauma, broken bones (especially in the legs), and internal injuries. Police interviewed the Defendant’s wife who stated that the Defendant had issues with alcohol and cocaine use. Police interviewed the Defendant who admitted to consuming beer prior to the accident.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan examined a civilian witness who was the first responder. Prior to any police arriving to the scene, this witness went over to the vehicle, looked in, and checked on the status of the Defendant and passenger. This witness attempted to speak to them but received no response. This witness physically went inside the vehicle and physically extricated the female passenger from the vehicle. The witness was unable to extricate the Defendant. During Attorney Noonan’s examination, the witness stated that he did not detect any odor of alcohol inside the vehicle and he did not detect any odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant – which was inconsistent with the reports of police that they detected an odor of alcohol coming from the Defendant, as he lay unconscious in the driver’s seat. The Commonwealth sought to obtain the Defendant’s hospital records from the Rhode Island Hospital. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan objected to the Commonwealth’s request to subpoena the hospital records – but a Brockton District Court Judge issued a court order for the Defendant’s hospital records. In order to lawfully obtain a person’s medical records from the Rhode Island Hospital, the requesting party must comply with the laws of Rhode Island. Here, the Commonwealth obtained a Massachusetts Court Order, but did not comply with Rhode Island law. Attorney Noonan pressed hard for a trial date. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth was unable to obtain the Defendant’s hospital records. The Commonwealth requested a continuance in order to obtain the Defendant’s hospital records. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan objected to the continuance and stated that he was ready for trial. The Commonwealth was unable to proceed without any medical evidence. As a result, the case was dismissed on the trial date. Had the client been convicted, he faced a minimum mandatory jail sentence of six-months and an automatic 2-year loss of license. The Defendant owned and operated a professional truck driving business and his business would have been ruined if he were convicted.


July 11, 2016
Commonwealth v. A Juvenile

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED AT TRIAL (lack of evidence)
WITNESS INTIMIDATION: DISMISSED AT TRIAL (lack of evidence)

Client was a junior in high school. A female student reported to the police that she had been receiving sexually charged and sexually inappropriate text messages from the client. The female students provided the sexually explicit text messages to the police. The client was not charged in connection with the text messages but police informed him that he was the prime suspect. The client denied the allegations and protested, repeatedly, that he did not send the text messages.

The police instructed the client to have no contact with the female student or else he would be charged with Intimidation of a Witness. Several weeks later, the female student reported to the police that the client had been staring at her in school and would strike her with his arm, shoulder, and backpack when passing her in the school hallway. The police officer pulled video footage from the hallway and, based on the officer’s opinion, the video showed the client intentionally striking the female student with his backpack. Based on the physical contact in the hallway, the police charged the Client with Assault & Battery. In addition, the police charged the Client with Witness Intimidation for staring and striking the female in the hallway on several different occasions.

Result: In conducting his pre-trial investigation, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained evidence that another student (not the client) was the person that sent the sexually inappropriate text messages to the female student. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan obtained text messages in which this other student admitted to sending the sexually inappropriate text messages to the female student. In his police report, the officer states that he paused the video on a specific minute and second where the client’s backpack made physical contact with the female’s left shoulder. Attorney Noonan blew up a picture of the minute and second where the officer claims he saw physical contact. In Attorney Noonan’s opinion, the image did not show any physical contact. If there was any contact, it was a slight brush and purely incidental as a result of students navigating their way to class in a crowded, narrow hallway. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan extracted and developed large photographs breaking down the sequence and movements of the client and the female student in the hallway. These images showed that the female student displayed absolutely no physical or emotional reaction in response to the so-called contact. On the day of trial, the District Attorney moved to dismiss the criminal complaints due to the mountain of evidence showing that the client did not commit any criminal offenses.


June 2016 Case Results


June 7, 2016
Commonwealth v. Allen Costa
Docket No.: 1658 CR 0507

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)


June 9, 2016
Commonwealth v. M.M.
Brockton District Court

STABBING CASE: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Brockton Police were dispatched to the emergency room at the Good Samaritan Hospital for a report of a patient-victim who had been stabbed. Upon arrival, police spoke to the alleged victim. The alleged victim stated that he attended a family party at a residence in Brockton. The alleged victim and members of the party were hanging out in the street outside the party. The alleged victim reported that he saw a few guys fighting in the street and he went over to break it up. One of the male parties involved in the fight confronted the alleged victim and threatened him. The male party left the scene. Minutes later, the male party returned to the scene and again confronted the alleged victim by getting in his face. The male party then stabbed the alleged victim and fled the scene. The alleged victim gave a physical description of the male suspect who stabbed him. Police spoke to a witness of the stabbing who happened to be a friend of the alleged victim. The witness told police that he witnessed the male party stab the alleged victim. The witness told police that the suspect was the Defendant. The witness knew the Defendant because the Defendant lived down the street from the witness. The witness provided police with the suspect’s name and address. Police went to the Defendant’s residence where they observed people in the street arguing about the stabbing. Police observed that the Defendant matched the description given to police by the alleged victim. After briefly speaking with the Defendant, police placed him under arrest for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon to wit: knife.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan asserted that the Defendant acted in self-defense. The Defendant told police that he had been jumped by five guys. The Defendant showed police bruises and abrasions that he sustained to his back, which were consistent with the Defendant being the victim of an attack. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan subpoenaed the emergency physician who treated the alleged victim. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to present medical evidence showing that the alleged victim’s injuries were not consistent with the accounts given by the alleged victim and the witness. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to present medical evidence showing that the alleged victim’s injuries were not consistent with a deliberate stabbing based upon the depth, size, and nature of the stab wound. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan also subpoenaed the emergency room nurse. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was prepared to introduce evidence that the emergency room nurse called Brockton Police because the alleged victim and his friends were being loud and causing a disturbance in the waiting area. Specifically, the emergency room nurse heard the alleged victim and his crew talk about “strapping up” and going out to get the Defendant. This evidence tended to show that the alleged victim and his crew were the aggressors in the conflict and they were acting violent. The first time the case was scheduled for trial, the Commonwealth requested a continuance over the Defendant’s objection. On the second trial date, the criminal charge was dismissed.


May 2016 Case Results


May 26, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.O.
Wareham District Court

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.


May 26, 2016
Commonwealth v. C.S.
Wareham District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE of FIREARM: DISMISSED AT TRIAL

Defendant called 911 to report that her husband had taken her revolver and threatened to shoot himself with it. Defendant was able to take the revolver away from her husband. Upon arrival, police spoke with the husband who stated that he had taken his wife’s revolver from her gun safe, which was unlocked, and threatened to shoot himself with it. The husband was taken to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. Defendant told police that she had locked her gun safe and that her husband must have known the combination in order to access the firearm.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan prepared the case for trial. Attorney Noonan was prepared to argue that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that the firearm in question was a working firearm and capable of discharging a shot or bullet. The Commonwealth failed to have the firearm examined and test fired by a ballistician in order to prove that the firearm was operable. In addition, Defendant’s husband invoked his marital privilege not to testify against his wife, the Defendant. Without the husband’s testimony, the Commonwealth would be unable to prove that the Defendant did not properly secure the firearm. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth moved to dismiss the criminal complaint.


May 16, 2016
Commonwealth v. D.W.
Brockton District Court

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: DISMISSED DURING TRIAL

An identified witness called police to report that she had observed a male party masturbating in his vehicle with his penis exposed. The witness told police that she was stopped at a red light. The witness stated that a vehicle was stopped next to her at the stop light. The witness stated that a male party in the vehicle next to her turned on his interior light, thrusted his hips upward, exposed his penis to her while masturbating. The witness stated that the vehicle cut her off and boxed her in preventing her from driving away. The witness stated that the male party motioned for her to follow him. The witness was able to maneuver her vehicle and drive away. The witness called 911 and provided police with the make, model, color and license plate of the vehicle. Police ran the vehicle’s registration and it came back to the Defendant. The witness provided a description of the Defendant as: white, late 30s to early 40s, heavy set, with a long strawberry-colored beard, and wearing a wool skull cap. The police administered a photo array to the witness and she positively identified the Defendant as the suspect. Prior to trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to suppress the witness’ positive identification of the Defendant because the police conducted the procedure in an unduly suggestive manner.

Result: At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion in Limine to exclude the witness from identifying the Defendant during her trial testimony. The Commonwealth argued that the witness was able to identify the Defendant based upon the observations she made of him during the incident. During the hearing, the witness testified that she was certain that the Defendant was the suspect based upon the observations she made of him during the incident. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan vigorously cross-examined the witness and showed that the witness’s identification was unreliable because she did not have a sufficient opportunity to observe the perpetrator at the time of the crime. At the conclusion of Attorney Noonan’s cross-examination, the judge ruled that the witness could not identify the Defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. As a result, the Commonwealth was forced to dismiss the case.


April 2016 Case Results


April 8, 2016
L.M. v. S.O.
Dedham District Court

209A RESTRAINING ORDER: VACATED

The alleged victim (girlfriend) called 911 from her locked bedroom and reported that her boyfriend had just assaulted her. She claimed that the Defendant was banging on her bedroom door with a wooden staff and she was afraid that he may kill her. Upon arrival, the alleged victim reported that the Defendant has a history of mental illness and was experiencing a manic episode. She claimed that the Defendant became violent and aggressive. She claimed that the Defendant sucker punched her in the face 4 times. She ran to her bedroom to get away from him. Defendant chased her to her bedroom. She was trying to close the bedroom door but the Defendant was trying to force is way in. She was able to close the bedroom door and lock it. She called the police from her bedroom at which time the Defendant was banging on her bedroom door with a wooden staff. Police observed that the alleged victim has scratches on her face, that she was bleeding from her face, that her ear-ring had been ripped, and that she was bleeding from the ear. Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery. Later that afternoon, the alleged victim obtained an emergency abuse prevention restraining order against the Defendant.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan requested a two-party hearing to challenge the extension of the 209A abuse prevention restraining order. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan cross-examined the alleged victim and showed that she assaulted and battered the Defendant, not the other way around. She testified that she pushed the Defendant to the ground in his bedroom. She testified that she pushed the Defendant to the ground, a second time, in the hallway to her bedroom. Attorney Noonan alleged that she had beaten the Defendant while he was on the ground with a wooden staff and a long cat scratcher. Attorney Noonan introduced photographs showing that the Defendant sustained extensive physical injuries in the attack. The photos showed that the Defendant had very large, sizeable bruises across his lower back, along his left hip, and distinct contusions to the chest, stomach, and elbows, and that he was bleeding extensively from his foot. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant’s injuries were consistent with him being the victim of a violent assault. As a result of the injuries he sustained in the assault, Defendant had to go to the emergency room by ambulance. Attorney Noonan introduced evidence that the Defendant is 72 years-old and suffers from many serious physical and medical conditions, such as: arteriovenous malformation in the brain, cardiac disease, kidney insufficiency, aortic aneurysm, hypertension, and anemia. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant was physically and medically incapable of violently assaulting the alleged victim, as she described. Attorney Noonan showed that the alleged victim was currently on probation for assaulting two victims with hot coffee. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge terminated the 209A Abuse Prevention Order.


April 5, 2016
Commonwealth v. Juvenile
Dedham Juvenile Court

ASSAULT: DISMISSED

An eighth grade student (alleged victim) reported to police that he was threatened by four males and was fearful that they would kill him. The alleged victim reported that he was walking home from school when he was approached by a vehicle with four males inside. The males were yelling at him from the vehicle. The alleged victim stated that two of the males got out of the vehicle and chased him on foot but the alleged victim was able to get away. The alleged victim reported that the same two males subsequently approached him at the Dunkin Donuts scaring the alleged victim causing him to leave the Dunkin Donuts and immediately go home. The alleged victim reported the incident to police because he was scared to walk home fearing that the males would hurt him. The alleged victim provided a description of the males. Based on his description, the officer was able to identify the Juvenile as one of the males that got out of the car and chased the alleged victim. Police interviewed the driver of the vehicle and he told police that the Juvenile was one of the males that got out of his vehicle and chased the alleged victim. Juvenile was charged with Assault.

Result: On the day of trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to get the criminal complaint dismissed.


March 2016 Case Results


March 28, 2016
Commonwealth v. C.D.
Attleboro District Court

LEAVING THE SCENE: NO COMPLAINT ISSUED

Defendant was traveling on Route 495 South returning from dinner with friends. Defendant was cut off by another vehicle. Defendant swerved to avoid a collision, lost control of his vehicle, and ended up in the woods off the highway in an embankment. Upon arrival, the police found the Defendant sitting on the guardrail in the breakdown lane near his vehicle. Police administered field sobriety tests and the Defendant passed them all. Officers informed him that he may receive a summons in the mail for Leaving the Scene of an Accident. Defendant did receive a summons for Leaving the Scene of an Accident and immediately contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan. Attorney Noonan immediately requested a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing and sought a copy of the Police Report.

Result: On the day before the Clerk’s Hearing, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was informed that the police department was withdrawing the criminal complaint. Defendant had no criminal record and was nearing graduation from the police academy.


March 17, 2016
Commonwealth v. B.S.
Plymouth District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED

Defendant had an argument with her boyfriend. The boyfriend told the Defendant to pack up her belongings and leave the residence. They proceeded to argue over the items that the Defendant wished to take with her upon moving out of the house. The argument escalated and the boyfriend alleged that the Defendant assaulted and battered him. The boyfriend called 911 and made a written statement to police. The police arrested the Defendant. Because the boyfriend-alleged victim was over 60 years old, Defendant was charged with Assault & Battery on an Elderly Person, an aggravated offense. The Commonwealth refused to dismiss the criminal complaint, even though the Defendant was in her late 50s and had no criminal record.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan placed the Commonwealth on notice that he would be asserting self-defense at trial. At trial, the alleged victim appeared ready to testify, as well as the arresting officer. At trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the criminal complaint that charged Defendant with an aggravated offense.


March 1, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.O.

Wareham District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE OF FIREARM: DISMISSED

Defendant called the police to report that someone broke into his apartment and stole his shotgun and ammunition from his gun case. Upon arrival, the police inspected the gun case. The gun case had been tampered with and some of the latches were missing. The officer believed that the Defendant did not have a lock on his gun case and charged him with Improper Storage of a Firearm. Police took fingerprints from the gun case. The only identifiable fingerprints on the gun case belonged to the Defendant. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Preserve the gun case. At trial, the Commonwealth did not have the gun case. Attorney Noonan subpoenaed the police dispatcher because the Defendant called the police and reported to the police dispatcher that he had a lock on his gun case. Attorney Noonan intended to call the Defendant’s father to testify. Defendant’s father would go shooting with the Defendant every other weekend. Defendant would bring his gun case when shooting with his father. Defendant’s father was willing to testify that the Defendant always had the same lock on his gun case every time they went shooting together. Defendant’s father was willing to give a description of the Defendant’s lock. Defendant’s father was willing to testify that they went shooting together 2 weeks before this incident and that the Defendant’s gun case had the same lock on it. In addition, Attorney sought to elicit testimony that the Defendant identified the suspect to police who he believed broke into his apartment and stole his firearm and ammunition. Attorney Noonan sought to show that the Commonwealth never investigated the suspect believed to have stolen the Defendant’s firearm. Police did not test the gun case for the suspect’s fingerprints. Attorney Noonan also intended to call the Defendant’s sister who lived in the same apartment with him and she was willing to testify that she told police that the same suspect stole money from her apartment the same day that the Defendant reported his firearm stolen.

Result: The day before trial, the Commonwealth informed Attorney Patrick J. Noonan that they would be dismissing the case on the day of trial.


February 2016 Case Results


February 24, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.F.
Wareham District Court

LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT
LARCENY over $250: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

A department store employee called police to report that the Defendant left the store without paying for items. Police apprehended the Defendant outside the store. A search of the Defendant’s purse showed 13 items that she shoplifted from the store, totaling $379.88. Store security informed police that the Defendant shoplifted from the store on five other occasions in the past month. Store security provided police with surveillance videos showing that the Defendant shoplifted from the store on five previous occasions. The total amount of items shoplifted on the five previous occasions amounted to $862.04. Defendant was charged with Larceny over $250 stemming from the incident in which she shoplifted amounting to $379.88. The police were seeking to bring 5 additional counts of Larceny over $250.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney’s Office to dismiss the felony charge of Larceny over $250 upon the payment of restitution. In addition, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the Commonwealth not to charge the Defendant with 5 additional felony charges of Larceny over $250. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan facilitated the payment of restitution to the department store for all 6 shoplifting incidents. As a result, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan saved his client from having 5 felony charges on her record.


February 23, 2016
Commonwealth v. K.C.
Brockton District Court

DISORDERLY CONDUCT: PRETRIAL DIVERSION
DISTURBING THE PEACE: PRETRIAL DIVERSION
MINOR IN POSS. OF ALCOHOL: PRETRIAL DIVERSION

At 1:00 a.m., Bridgewater Police received a complaint reporting a loud house party. This house had issues with prior disturbances over the past several months. Upon arrival, police heard loud music playing, people yelling inside, and glass shattering. The people inside refused to open to the door for police. Upon entering the house, police observed numerous alcoholic containers, marijuana residue, and the people inside appeared to be under 21. Several youths fled from the house. Subsequently, the fire department and building inspector condemned the house as unsafe. The renter of the home was uncooperative. It was alleged that the party had been going on for 3 days before police broke it up. Neighbors reported seeing teenagers urinating in the yard. Police arrested everyone present in the home. In total, police arrested 41 people, including the Defendant. Prior to the arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan met with the District Attorney’s Office. Attorney Noonan explained that his client was a sophomore at Bridgewater State University. Attorney Noonan explained that his client worked in Wellesley from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Attorney Noonan explained that his client went to the house party after work for the purpose of driving her three friends home who had been drinking. Defendant was acting as the designated driver. Shortly after the Defendant arrived to the house to pick up her three friends, the police arrived and arrested everybody. Attorney Noonan’s client was 19 years-old, she had no criminal record, and she was a Dean’s List student. The case received national media attention.

Result: Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuades the Commonwealth to enter his client into the Pretrial Diversion Program. Upon the client’s successful completion of community service and having not committed any new offenses, the Commonwealth will dismiss all criminal charges against the Defendant prior to arraignment on 05/23/16. Therefore, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan’s client will have no criminal charges on her record.

This case in the news:


February 18, 2016
Commonwealth v. B.M.
Brockton District Court

LARCENY BY CHECK: DISMISSED

Client was alleged to have written a check in the amount of $136.00 to pay for groceries. The check was returned due to the account being closed. The grocery store filed an application for criminal complaint for larceny by check. Defendant did not receive notice of the criminal complaint, as he moved to a different address. As a result, a default warrant issued. Several years later, Defendant was arrested on the warrant and arraigned in court on the Larceny by Check charge. After his arraignment, client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: At his first court appearance, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan was able to dismiss the Larceny by Check charge by agreement of all the parties.


February 17, 2016
Commonwealth v. E.D.
Attleboro District Court

LEAVING SCENE OF ACCIDENT: DISMISSED

A victim went into the police station to report that her vehicle was damaged in the parking lot of a supermarket. An identified witness left a note of the victim’s windshield stating that the Defendant’s vehicle struck the victim’s vehicle and left the scene without leaving a note. The witness provided the make, model, and license plate of the Defendant’s vehicle. The witness stated that the Defendant’s vehicle struck the victim’s vehicle, as the Defendant was attempting to park. After striking the victim’s vehicle, Defendant backed out and parked in a different parking spot. Defendant did not exit her vehicle to assess the damage she caused to the victim’s vehicle. Defendant did not leave a note on the victim’s vehicle reporting what happened and providing the victim with her information. Defendant admitted to police that she hit the vehicle and left the scene. Defendant appeared at a Show Cause Hearing without representation. The clerk magistrate found probable cause to issue the criminal complaint. After her arraignment, client contacted Attorney Patrick J. Noonan.

Result: At his first court appearance, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the District Attorney to dismiss the criminal charge and provided documentation showing that the Defendant’s car insurance paid for all the damage to the victim’s vehicle.


January 2016 Case Results


January 28, 2016
Commonwealth v. K.D.
Brockton District Court

LEWD & LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT: NOT GUILTY

A woman (alleged victim) called 911 to report that a woman in a second story apartment building was exposing her vagina and masturbating. The alleged victim was driving her teenaged daughter and her teenaged daughter’s friends to school. They went to the Dunkin Donuts drive thru. While placing their order in the drive-thru line, the alleged victim’s daughter directed her attention to the second story window in the apartment adjacent to the Dunkin Donuts. The alleged victim looked up into the window and saw a heavyset woman standing in the window naked from the waist down with her vagina exposed. The alleged victim beeped her horn so that the woman in the window would leave. When she beeped her horn, the alleged victim saw the woman in the window insert her fingers into her vagina and masturbate. The alleged victim immediately called 911. Upon arrival, police looked into the apartment window and a saw a heavy-set woman naked from the waist down. Police gained entry into the apartment. The Defendant was in the apartment. When speaking with the Defendant, police identified the Defendant as the person in the window naked from the waist down. Police observed that the Defendant matched the description given by the alleged victim. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discredited the alleged victim. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discovered that the alleged victim withheld the names and identities of percipient witnesses. That is, there were two other girls in the alleged victim’s vehicle that the alleged victim decided not to disclose to the police. At trial, the prosecutor introduced a photograph that one of the girls in the car had taken of the person in the window. The photo showed a leg propped up on the window sill. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan established that this photograph was provided to police shortly after the alleged incident and that it was not disclosed to the defense until the day of trial. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Commonwealth made the decision to introduce a black and white copy of the photo when they should have introduced a color copy of the photo. The color copy was the best evidence and may have been exculpatory to the defense. Attorney Noonan questioned the government’s decision to introduce the black and white photo when they had the ability to introduce a color copy. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant did not have the intent to expose herself to the public. Attorney Noonan showed that the shades to the window were pulled down so the only thing visible was below the person’s waist. Attorney Noonan showed that the window had red curtains on both sides. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant desired privacy and took steps to ensure her privacy. Attorney Noonan argued that the Defendant’s exposure was negligent, not reckless.

Result: After a two-day jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan convinced the jury that the Defendant did not commit a sexual act in the apartment window and that the Defendant did not masturbate in the apartment window. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan won a Not Guilty verdict on the offense of Lewd, Wanton, and Lascivious Conduct.


January 21, 2016
Commonwealth v. F.P.
Quincy District Court

OPEN & GROSS LEWDNESS: NOT GUILTY

A woman (alleged victim) walked into the police station to report an incident that just happened in the parking lot of TJ Maxx. The alleged victim claimed that she parked her vehicle in the parking lot of the TJ Maxx. She stated that she parked next to the Defendant’s vehicle and their driver’s side doors were facing each other. The Defendant was sitting in his vehicle with the driver’s side window down. She claimed that she exited her vehicle and walked past the Defendant’s driver’s side window. She claimed that she looked down into the Defendant’s window and saw that he had an erect penis exposed through the zipper of his pants. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan discredited the alleged victim. The alleged victim testified that she went immediately into the TJ Maxx to report the incident to the manager. She testified that she provided the manager with the make, model, and license plate to the Defendant’s vehicle. She testified that she provided the manager with a physical description of the Defendant. She testified that the manager offered to escort her to her vehicle but she refused. She testified that the manager offered to call the police but she refused. At trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the TJ Maxx manager as a witness. The manager testified that he had no knowledge of receiving such a report and that he would remember receiving such a report. The manager testified that he had never met the alleged victim. This impeachment testimony discredited the alleged victim. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan thoroughly attacked the investigation conducted by police. The arresting officer testified that he interviewed the alleged victim for approximately 30 minutes. After interviewing the alleged victim, the arresting officer spoke with the Defendant in the lobby of the police station. The Defendant arrived to the police station before the alleged victim to report that a crazy woman falsely accused him of exposing his penis in the TJ Maxx parking lot. The arresting officer testified that he spoke to the Defendant for about 1-2 minutes and placed him under arrest. The arresting officer did not conduct any investigation other than speaking to the alleged victim. The arresting officer did not listen to what the Defendant came to the police station to report. The arresting officer made up his mind that the Defendant committed the crime after he spoke with the alleged victim. Because he rushed to judgment, the arresting officer did not conduct any investigation. Lastly, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan called the Defendant to testify on his own behalf. Defendant worked for the Department of Corrections for 37 years. Defendant was a veteran of the Air Force. Defendant testified that he went to the TJ Maxx to do some shopping. After shopping, Defendant went back to his vehicle and sat in the driver’s seat. Defendant drank a large ice coffee and ate a coffee roll while sitting in his driver’s seat. While eating and drinking in the driver’s seat, the alleged victim walked past his window and said, “Pull up your pants, you creep.” Defendant was shocked by the alleged victim’s accusation because he didn’t do anything wrong. Defendant went directly to the police station to report the false accusation. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan argued that the Defendant’s actions showed consciousness of innocence.

Result: After a two day jury trial, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan won a Not Guilty verdict on the felony offense of Open & Gross Lewdness. Attorney Noonan’s client was a 65 year-old retired state employee and a military veteran with no criminal record.


January 13, 2016
Commonwealth v. S.O.
Wareham District Court

ASSAULT & BATTERY: DISMISSED
RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT of CHILD: DISMISSED

The alleged victim walked into the police station to report that the Defendant assaulted him and endangered the life of his two year-old son. The Defendant’s sister had a two year-old child with the alleged victim. The alleged victim claimed that he was pushing his two year-old son in a baby stroller for an afternoon walk. When he was crossing the street, the alleged victim claimed that the Defendant accelerated his high-performance vehicle at him and the baby. The alleged victim claimed that the vehicle came inches from hitting him and the baby stroller. The alleged victim claimed that he had to push the baby stroller out of the way or else the vehicle would strike the baby stroller. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant and two other males got out of the vehicle and approached him. The alleged victim claimed that the Defendant got in his face, yelled at him, threatened him, and pushed him into the baby stroller. The alleged victim claimed that an unidentified neighbor threatened to call the police and the Defendant fled the scene. Defendant had two open criminal cases. When he was charged with this offense, probation moved to find him in violation for committing a new offense while on probation and while he had two criminal cases pending. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan refused to have his client stipulate to violating probation by committing a new offense. Attorney Noonan requested a hearing to challenge probable cause that the Defendant committed a new crime.

Result: At the probation violation hearing, the alleged victim appeared and recanted his statements to police. Attorney Patrick J. Noonan moved the court to dismiss the criminal complaints because the alleged victim recanted his statement to police. The judge dismissed the criminal complaints and the Defendant was not found in violation of probation.


January 7, 2016
Commonwealth v. M.S.
Brockton District Court

IMPROPER STORAGE OF FIREARM: DISMISSED PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT

Defendant, the president of a company with no prior criminal record, was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm when police searched his apartment and found a fully loaded handgun in the drawer to his nightstand in his bedroom. The fully loaded handgun was not equipped with a trigger lock and was not secured in any locked container. At his arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan filed a Motion to Dismiss Prior to Arraignment successfully argued that the Defendant was denied his statutory right to a Clerk Magistrate’s Hearing prior to the issuance of any criminal charges. The case was remanded for a Clerk’s Hearing.

Result: After getting the case dismissed prior to arraignment, Attorney Patrick J. Noonan persuaded the police prosecutor and the clerk magistrate to hold the matter open for a period of one year. If the Defendant stays out of trouble for one year, the charge will be dismissed prior to arraignment and he will not have any criminal charges on his record.


Learn More About Attorney Patrick J. Noonan