Criminal Lawyer Massachusetts Cambridge Assault Battery Armed Burglary Dangerous WeaponUpdated on: 2:53 pm
Criminal Lawyer Massachusetts Cambridge Assault Battery Armed Burglary Dangerous Weapon
Commonwealth v. Cliff
Defendant was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court (Massachusetts) for criminal offense of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, assault and battery on a police officer, violation of a restraining order, and armed burglary. In the same trial, defendant was convicted of assault and battery regarding another incident with the same victim. Defendant appealed the armed burglary and assault and battery convictions.
If you are facing a criminal case in Cambridge, Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747.
The Massachusetts Court made the following holding:
- Armed burglary, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, § 14 covers a breaking and entering of a dwelling with intent to commit a felony and a subsequent assault on a person lawfully therein even though that person arrived home after the break while the intruder was still present.
- Armed burglary does not require that a defendant be armed at the time of breaking or entering, only that he either subsequently armed himself or subsequently committed an actual assault.
- To convict a defendant of assault and battery, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has the burden of proving that the defendant touched the victim without having any right or excuse to do so and that the defendant’s touching of the victim was intentional.
The Gilmore & SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your case.
A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
These summaries are provided by the Gilmore & Sris Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The Original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.