Massachusetts Legal Developments Blog

New Massachusetts Ruling Clarifies the Legal Definition of "Firearms"

Many Americans have a clear idea of what a firearm is. Most would say that it is a gun of some kind capable of firing cartridges using the chemical reaction of explosive gunpowder. However, not all states agree – and various jurisdictions define firearms in different ways. For example, New Jersey defines BB guns in exactly the same way as "traditional" firearms. A recent firearms case in Massachusetts clarifies how the Commonwealth defines firearms – particularly in the context of unlicensed possession.

Commonwealth Reverses Charge After Clarifying Legal Definition of "Firearms"

In November of 2024, the Appeals Court in Massachusetts reversed a charge of unlicensed firearm possession, noting that what the defendant actually held was not, in fact, a "firearm" under the proper legal definition.

The case stems from a 2021 incident in which police discovered the unconscious defendant in a parked car at 2:00 AM. Police noticed drug paraphernalia inside the vehicle and carried out a search, finding a bag of fentanyl and a stun gun in the process.

In 2022, the defendant was charged with various weapons and firearms offenses – including "possession of a firearm without a license" and "possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony." Although the drug charges stemmed from trafficking allegations, the firearms charges were solely concerning the defendant's possession of the stun gun (also known as a Taser).

Later, the defendant argued that the firearm charges should be dismissed because the stun gun does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun. While the judge agreed to dismiss the charge of possession during a felony, the unlicensed possession charge stood.

The defendant then appealed. The appeals court subsequently reviewed the legal definition of a firearm in Massachusetts, which includes the phrase:

"[...] constructed in a shape that [resembles] a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun [...]"

The Commonwealth did not dispute the defendant's description of his own stun gun, which included the phrase:

"A clunky electrical razor or even a small brick."

The Commonwealth had no other choice but to accept that the legal definition of a firearm in Massachusetts cannot include stun guns that do not resemble firearms. The appeals court seemed bewildered as to how this could have happened since it opens the door for all kinds of "covert weapons" that should clearly be illegal.

The appeals court also noted that when the resemblance requirement was added to the firearm definition, the term "stun gun" was still absent. As a result, this represents a totally unintentional (and somewhat absurd) outcome for the defendant, albeit a clearly positive one.

Contact an Experienced Firearms Defense Lawyer in Boston

If you are serious about fighting for your Second Amendment rights, contact an experienced firearms defense lawyer in Boston. Edward R. Molari has experience representing those accused of unlicensed possession, self-defense, illegal modifications, and many related offenses. Schedule a consultation today to learn more – and get started with a real defense strategy.

Tags:

Criminal Defense

Firearms

High School Essay Leads to Sex Crime Charges in Massachusetts

Sometimes, the most unexpected things can trigger police investigations and subsequent criminal investigations. Recently, a high school essay published by a student caused a criminal investigation in Massachusetts – eventually leading to a charge of "gross lewdness and lascivious behavior." Although the defendant attempted to appeal his conviction, he was ultimately unsuccessful.

Student Details Troubling Incident in High School Essay

This case stems from an incident described in a high school essay. This incident described involved a sleepover with two girls staying at the defendant's home – one of whom was the defendant's stepdaughter. At about 3:00 AM that night, the defendant is accused of pleasuring himself at the foot of the victim's bed. She woke up due to the sounds he was making, and he eventually ejaculated onto her ankle.

The victim then pulled her ankle back under the covers, causing the defendant to flee the room. She subsequently texted her mother and sister at 4:00 AM, asking to be picked up. They arrived at 8:00 AM, and the victim informed her family of the incident. However, she did not want to report the incident to the police – and life continued for the girl – who was 12 years old when this all happened.

Four years later, she wrote an essay describing these experiences. The police became aware of the essay and began investigating the defendant. During the trial, the judge instructed the jury about the legal definition of "lewdness and lascivious behavior." Under this definition, the defendant must act "openly" while "intending exposure" or "recklessly disregarding" the risk of exposure.

Later, the fact that the judge did not define the term "recklessly" became a sticking point. The defendant argued on appeal that if the judge wanted to use a vague term like "recklessly," they should have clearly defined it.

In response, the Commonwealth argued that this did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The real issue here, they claimed, was whether the defendant exposed his genitals "openly." Since the defendant's entire strategy at trial was that the defendant was lying about the incident, the court did not look favorably upon this later strategy.

In the end, the appeals court determined that the jury would have reached the same conclusion whether the judge had defined the term "recklessly" or not. It is worth noting that the defendant still experienced notable success, having already been found not guilty of a charge of assault and battery stemming from the same case.

Work With an Experienced Defense Attorney in Massachusetts

Although this particular attempt failed, highlighting issues with legal definitions is a legitimate defense strategy. It is the judge's responsibility to define various legal terms when they deliver the jury instructions, and certain omissions could certainly constitute miscarriages of justice. To discuss potential defense strategies in more detail, consider a consultation with Edward R. Molari, an experienced defense attorney in Boston.

Tags:

Criminal Defense

CJIS Testimony About Firearms Records is Hearsay in Massachusetts

In an important recent decision, the Commonwealth ruled that a representative of the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) could not testify about the results of a firearms registry records search conducted by a different CJIS employee. The appeals court ruled that such testimony was hearsay, and this led to the Commonwealth reversing a conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition in Massachusetts.

The Background of Commonwealth vs. Jose Encarnacion

The ruling stems from a case involving a traffic stop in January 2020. After an officer pulled the defendant over for a broken tail light, they determined that his license had been suspended. Next, they arrested him, placed him in handcuffs, and searched his vehicle. This search led to the discovery of a firearm, and the officer asked the defendant to present his firearms license. The defendant stated that he did not have a license, and the officer subsequently located six rounds of “loose ammunition” – plus a magazine loaded with seven cartridges.

When the defendant eventually faced a trial for unlawful possession charges, a CJIS Deputy Commissioner explained that law enforcement officials could use the CJIS database to determine whether individuals had been approved for or denied firearms licenses. However, this CJIS employee did not personally search the database to determine whether the defendant had acquired a license.

Initially, defense counsel objected to this testimony on the grounds of hearsay. However, the judge overruled the objection and allowed the testimony. The counsel then objected to similar issues, and the prosecution offered to call in additional witnesses. They also offered to have a witness conduct a CJIS database search in real time before the jury. However, none of these offers actually materialized, and the judge seemed to prefer the initial testimony of the deputy commissioner.

Appeals Court Defines CJIS Testimony as Hearsay

An appeals court found that the testimony of the CJIS Deputy Commissioner was, in fact, hearsay. It is not difficult to see why they came to this conclusion, as the commissioner testified about what someone else had done. Not only that, but the commissioner testified about the conclusions of a CJIS database search conducted by someone else.

The court also determined that even if there was an exception to the hearsay rule in this circumstance, the testimony would have violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights anyway. Among other things, the Sixth Amendment includes the right to confront your accuser directly.

Can a Massachusetts Defense Lawyer Help With Unlawful Possession of Ammo?

An experienced defense lawyer in Massachusetts may be able to help you defend yourself against charges of unlawful possession of ammunition. As the recent Commonwealth decision shows, testimony from CJIS employees may not be as reliable as prosecutors assume. The court must be very careful when choosing witnesses to testify against defendants in these cases, and they should choose the same person who actually conducted a records check in order to avoid hearsay issues. To explore a potential defense strategy in greater detail, reach out to Edward R. Molari today.

Tags:

Criminal Defense

Firearms

Surveillance Footage vs. Eyewitnesses in Boston Armed Robbery Cases

Prosecutors today rely heavily on surveillance footage, a form of evidence that did not even exist a lifetime ago. Prior to this development, the only way to look back on a past moment was by asking an eyewitness. Which is the more reliable form of evidence in the context of murder, armed robbery, or assault cases in Boston? This question was recently addressed in a Boston armed robbery case – and it provides some interesting insights.

Armed Robbery and Murder Defendants Appeal Based on Video Evidence

This case involved armed robbery and murder stemming from a 2015 incident. The defendants were accused of robbing or attempting to rob three different sex workers at gunpoint within a single night. The first woman denied them entry to her hotel room, while the second opened her door and had several hundred dollars stolen. They then visited a third woman’s hotel room, and this woman died shortly after the visit.

The defendants were filmed entering and exiting the hotel via surveillance cameras. The guests also reported hearing screaming and a single gunshot. During their investigation, police contacted the two women who interacted with the defendants. One identified a defendant when presented with a photograph of him. Investigators also obtained security footage from not only the hotel but also the surrounding buildings.

Investigators then used this footage to identify the defendant’s vehicle, later tracking it to a residence in Burlington. They then seized the car, searched it, and accessed his cell phone – finding more incriminating evidence. They also found evidence that showed the defendant was an employee of one of the targeted hotels. Through additional searches of vehicles and residences, investigators found compelling evidence against the defendant – including the apparent murder weapon and clothing worn during the offenses.

All of this led to numerous convictions during a jury trial in 2017. These convictions included murder in the first degree and attempted armed robbery.

The defendant then appealed, arguing that the police officer who identified the defendant in the surveillance videos did so erroneously. The defendant argued that the video footage was of poor quality, making it difficult to determine the identities of recorded individuals. In addition, the court admitted that instead of allowing the officer to describe the footage to the jury, they should have simply shown the footage directly to the jury.

Despite this admission, the court decided that the error did not result in prejudice. Aside from the video footage, the court argued, there was simply too much incriminating evidence. In other words, it would not have mattered anyway – and the defendant would have still been convicted.

Contact a Boston Armed Robbery Defense Lawyer

If you have been accused of armed robbery in Boston, you might want to get in touch with an experienced defense attorney at your earliest convenience. Even if there seems to be a significant amount of evidence laid against you, a lawyer could help you fight for your rights with confidence. To get started with a defense strategy, contact Edward R. Molari today.

Tags:

Criminal Defense

Dartmouth Police Officer Gets the Minimum Sentence for Child Rape

A 10-year police veteran has been sent to prison for at least a decade after being convicted of child rape. Two victims came forward with harrowing stories during the trial, telling the court how the former officer had taken advantage of them through family ties. Although 10 years might seem like a long time, prosecutors were pushing for a much more substantial sentence. In the end, the officer emerged with only the mandatory minimum sentence – something that has raised numerous questions.

Police Officer Found Guilty of Child Rape and Indecent Assault

In October of 2024, various sources reported that a police officer had been found guilty of child rape and indecent assault in Massachusetts. He was sentenced to between 10 and 15 years in prison, followed by two years of supervised probation. In total, he was convicted of two counts of aggravated rape of a child and one count of rape of a child by force.

During the three-day trial, the court heard evidence that the officer had raped a young girl between the ages of 6 and 8. According to one report, this young girl was a family member – and the rape occurred between 2011 and 2013. This individual first became a police officer in 2008. Boston.com claims that this young child was the defendant’s stepdaughter.

Another victim also came forward, accusing the officer of molesting her when she was 15 years old. According to her testimony, this molestation occurred when the teenager was visiting the defendant’s home alongside her family for a movie night.

This marks the second trial for these crimes. The first trial occurred in 2022, but it ultimately ended in a mistrial.

Prosecutors Not Happy With the Court’s Leniency

Although the victims must be relieved to see this individual behind bars, prosecutors expected a much more substantial sentence. Bristol County District Attorney Thomas Quinn stated:

“We had requested more and thought more was appropriate. I mean, you are dealing with a police officer here.”

It is easy to understand this sentiment. After all, police officers are tasked with protecting their communities. One would think that such a blatant betrayal of trust would lead to less leniency from the court – not more. 10 years is the bare minimum for child rape in Massachusetts, and this defendant could have received a sentence of up to 25 years.

Contact Edward R. Molari Today

Although this police officer received only the mandatory minimum sentence, the case still highlights just how corrupt and unethical law enforcement can be. Fortunately, this particular officer was caught and held accountable. But how many officers are abusing their positions of authority behind closed doors? How many other victims are too scared to come forward? If you need help pushing back against corrupt police officers, consider a consultation with an experienced defense attorney in Boston. Choose Edward R. Molari, and get started with an action plan today.

Tags:

Criminal Defense

Do Prosecutors Have to Reveal a Confidential Informant's Identity in Boston?

Many drug trafficking defendants in Massachusetts are prosecuted on the basis of information from confidential informants or "CIs." The issue is that these CIs are inherently anonymous – and their use raises Sixth Amendment questions. In the United States, defendants are supposed to have the right to face their accusers in court. Without this principle, the government could theoretically fabricate charges and then claim that their evidence is "confidential." A recent case in Massachusetts provides further insights into this issue.

Prosecutors Refuse to Hand Over Confidential Informant Evidence in Drug Case

If you face evidence from a confidential informant in Massachusetts, you should be able to request some background information at the very least. However, a recent defendant was met with stiff opposition when his lawyer requested documents relating to a confidential informant in Boston.

This case stems from an alleged drug deal that took place in 2019. After receiving a tip from a confidential informant, police began tracking a man in a red Honda Accord. Eventually, they saw him carry out a suspected drug deal and quickly pulled him over. After searching his vehicle, they discovered various drugs and bundles of cash.

The defendant's attorney began to raise questions about whether the initial tipoff from the confidential informant was reliable. In response, the Commonwealth provided the defense lawyer with a memo written by a police officer. This memo waxed lyrical about this confidential informant, claiming that they had participated in numerous investigations involving drug distribution. In addition, the memo stated (for the first time) that this confidential informant had carried out a "controlled buy" from the defendant 72 hours before his arrest.

However, the defense lawyer was not satisfied with this report – and he requested additional documents during discovery. These included copies of all communications between the confidential informant and the police department – including text messages. The lawyer also requested a "track record" of the past cases this informant had assisted with. In addition, he requested more documentation about the alleged controlled buy. Perhaps most importantly, the defense lawyer requested "motive to lie" information. These documents could potentially expose conflicts of interest, as many informants "sell" information in exchange for money, shorter sentences, and other rewards.

While the judge did not force the prosecutors to hand over all of this information, she ordered them to provide the communication documents and any information about the "motive to lie." Amazingly, the Commonwealth simply refused to comply. As a result, the judge dismissed the case against the defendant. However, a higher court then determined that the judge erred – and that she should have considered a less severe sanction. As a result, the case will assumedly move forward again.

Can a Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer in Massachusetts Help Me?

If you were arrested for drug trafficking in Massachusetts and you believe that the evidence came from a confidential informant, you may have various defense strategies to consider. To discuss your legal options in more detail, get in touch with a Boston defense lawyer. Choose Edward R. Molari, Attorney at Law, to work alongside a lawyer who has direct experience with drug cases. Book your consultation today to get started.

Tags:

Criminal Defense

Drug Trafficking

Drug Possess to Distribute

Massachusetts Correctional Officer Accused of Smuggling Drugs Into Jail

We often hear that it is easier to purchase drugs behind bars than on the street. To the casual observer, this might seem like a ridiculous concept. After all, jails and prisons are subject to the highest levels of security. Everyone and everything that goes into a correctional facility is searched with a fine-tooth comb – so how could drugs end up in the hands of inmates? What many people fail to realize is that there is considerable corruption among correctional officers – and a recent drug case in Massachusetts highlights this issue.

Jail Guard Allegedly Gave Suboxone Strips to Inmates

A correctional officer in Norfolk County faces serious drug charges after being accused of smuggling suboxone strips into a jail. The defendant was reportedly approached by one of the inmates, who offered payment in exchange for his assistance in a drug operation. The jail guard allegedly agreed and met with a female acquaintance of the inmate in a parking lot. The female co-conspirator provided the guard with suboxone strips, which he then smuggled into the jail alongside garbage bags.

Suboxone strips are FDA-approved, and they are used to treat heroin addiction. Proponents of this drug have testified before Congress on its ability to help treat heroin addicts. Perhaps most notably, it completely removes symptoms related to withdrawal while eliminating cravings. However, CNN notes that it can also be abused as a recreational drug – providing a "little bit of a high."

One has to wonder whether the inmates were abusing the suboxone or genuinely trying to treat their own addictions. Due to the supposed availability of drugs in prisons and jails, one would assume that heroin addicts could simply buy the "real thing" instead of using suboxone. One might also wonder why the jail wasn't giving suboxone to inmates struggling with withdrawal, especially given its FDA-approved status. Remember, heroin withdrawal can be fatal.

County Sheriff Patrick McDermott stated:

"[...]our number one role here at the sheriff's office and at our correctional facility is rehabilitation before these men go forward and back into their communities."

Regardless, the correctional officer has been fired – and he now faces penalties for drug conspiracy. He says he was promised $5,000 to participate in the operation, which he never received.

Tags:

Criminal Defense

Drug Trafficking

Drug Possess to Distribute

Massachusetts Police Detective Accused of Strangling Pregnant Woman

A former police detective in Massachusetts is facing serious charges after allegedly strangling a pregnant woman. This woman was found dead back in 2021, and her death was initially ruled a suicide. However, investigators now believe that this apparent suicide was staged by the detective – who knew exactly how to fool his colleagues. The details of this murder are disturbing, and the defendant faces an uphill battle in court. But as any Massachusetts defense attorney will tell you, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Defendant Allegedly Had Relationship With Victim Since She Was 15

Investigators say that the detective maintained a sexual relationship with the victim since she was just 15 years old. He was one of three officers to face these accusations. When the victim reached the age of 23, she allegedly told the detective that she had become pregnant with his child. Prosecutors say that this news caused the officer to kill her, and they say his motive was to conceal the illegal relationship that he had maintained since her childhood.

Perhaps the most important question is simple: How could her death have been ruled a suicide if there is clear evidence that suggests otherwise? This raises worrying questions about law enforcement in Massachusetts. Specifically, there are questions about whether police covered up the crime in order to support one of their own.

In fact, this crime was only exposed because the victim’s family hired an independent pathologist. This pathologist immediately discovered that the suicide allegations made no sense. This triggered a more in-depth investigation, which reportedly uncovered evidence of underage sex with the victim.

Prosecutors apparently have documents that show the victim was excited about giving birth. These documents also show that the defendant pressured the victim into deleting any digital evidence of their relationship before her 16th birthday. After giving her these instructions, he then searched for how to delete data from his own phone.

Victim Allegedly Groomed Through Youth Police Program

Perhaps the most disturbing detail of this case is the involvement of a special youth program operated by the Boy Scouts. The Stoughton Police Explorers Academy is geared toward teaching children about careers in law enforcement. The victim participated in this program at the age of 12 and continued until the age of 16. This brought her into contact with the defendant – implying that he groomed her through a vocational program designed for children. This not only raises questions about the police, but it also casts doubt on everyone involved in these youth programs.

Contact a Massachusetts Defense Attorney to Discuss Potential Defense Strategies

People are accused of heinous crimes all the time, but not all defendants are convicted. Regardless of how shocking these allegations might be, regardless of the evidence, you are always innocent until prosecutors prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If you face violent crime charges in Massachusetts, a criminal defense attorney may be able to help. Contact Edward R. Molari today to learn more about potential defense strategies.

Tags:

Criminal Defense

Murder

Domestic Assault and Battery

Suffocation

Strangulation

Pregnant

Serious Bodily Injury

Power and Accountability: The Tragic Case of Matthew Farwell and Sandra Birchmore

A former Stoughton police officer has been indicted in federal court for having a sexual relationship with a woman from the time she was 15 years old until she was 23 and killing her sometime after she told him she was pregnant with his child.

The case involving former Stoughton police officer Matthew Farwell and Sandra Birchmore is a tragic and complex story that has raised significant concerns about power dynamics and accountability within law enforcement. Birchmore, a young woman who had been involved in a police cadet program, developed a relationship with Farwell over several years. The nature of this relationship and the circumstances surrounding it eventually led to a deeper investigation after Birchmore’s untimely death in 2021.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the government's motion for pretrial detention, Birchmore joined the Stoughton Police Explorers Academy as a child. "Farwell used his authority and access to groom, sexually exploit, and ultimately sexually abuse then-15-year-old Birchmore." Then, after she became pregnant she began to disclose her sexual relationship. In October of 2020, Birchmore found out that Farwell's wife was pregnant with their third child and "presented Farwell with an ultimatum: Farwell would have to agree to engage in unprotected sex with Birchmore with the goalof conceiving a child; and in return, Birchmore would not disclose their relationship." In December she sent Farwell a text saying "congrats we are going to be parents." After that point, witnesses told investigators that Birchmore was extatic about her pregnancy, but Farwell became physically abusive. Their text messages show a long runing argument in which Birchmore pushes for commitment to being a family, and when Farwell resists Birchmore threatens to make the history of their relationship public.

In January of 2021, while Birchmore continued to pressure Farwell, Farwell changed his tune. He began telling her that he would commit, and asked for a key and access to her apartment. On February 1st, the last time Birchmore was seen alive, Farwell sent her a text asking if he could "come by for a second." The last text she ever sent was to Farwell saying that she left to door open for him. Surveillance video shows Farwell entering her apartment at 9:14 p.m. Investigators accessed Birchmore's phone which shows a timeline of her use of the device, as well as health data showing her last movement at 9:40 p.m., "3 minutes before Farwell was captured on surveillance video leaving Birchmore's apartment."

On February 4, 2021, Canton police found Birchmore's body next to the closet door with a duffle bag strap around her neck and the closet door handle. The office of the medical examiner determined the cause of death to be suicide, but the family was incredulous because everything in her apartment demonstrated that she was very future-oriented. The government obtained an independent review which indicated that the fracture of Birchmore's hyoid bone "is not consistent with the position in which first responders found her" and is not consistent with hanging by sitting with a strap around a door handle, but is consistent with strangulation. The review showed other signs consistent with strangulation.

In further support of the conclusion that Farwell killed Birchmore, the affidavit also details some sexually violent fantasies described by Farwell and sexually violent conduct that he and Birchmore discussed by text message, and also describes the various ways that Farwell lied to investigators while trying to minimize his relationship with Birchmore and his proximity to her last moments. Without a doubt Farwell's defense will include a challenge to the admissibilty of his conversations with Birchmore about his sexually violent fantasies.

The investigation into Farwell’s actions revealed a troubling pattern of behavior that called into question the responsibility of law enforcement officers in maintaining professional boundaries, especially with vulnerable individuals. This case has become a focal point for discussions about the ethical obligations of those in positions of authority and the safeguards that need to be in place to protect individuals who may be influenced by such figures.

Beyond the specific legal and disciplinary outcomes, the story of Sandra Birchmore and Matthew Farwell underscores the importance of oversight in law enforcement. It serves as a reminder that the systems in place to protect individuals must be robust and proactive, particularly when those individuals are in vulnerable positions or interacting with authority figures.

The ongoing conversation around this case highlights the need for continuous evaluation of police conduct, both to prevent future incidents and to rebuild trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. It also emphasizes the critical role that accountability and transparency play in maintaining the integrity of the justice system.

Tags:

Is a Switchblade a “Dangerous Weapon” in Massachusetts?

When it comes to criminal offenses, definitions matter. In cases involving prohibited weapons, the definition of “dangerous” is particularly important – and complex. Where do we draw the line between a “dangerous” blade and a knife that functions more like an everyday tool? The statute provides the following impossibly complex and ambiguous definition:

. . . stiletto, dagger or a device or case which enables a knife with a locking blade to be drawn at a locked position, any ballistic knife, or any knife with a detachable blade capable of being propelled by any mechanism, dirk knife, any knife having a double-edged blade, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches, or a slung shot, blowgun, blackjack, metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles, nunchaku, zoobow, also known as klackers or kung fu sticks, or any similar weapon consisting of two sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather, a shuriken or any similar pointed starlike object intended to injure a person when thrown, or any armband, made with leather which has metallic spikes, points or studs or any similar device made from any other substance or a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand, or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends . . . (and it goes on)

Putting blades aside, can we really say that a bike lock or wrench is less “dangerous” than a switchblade? In the hands of a sufficiently enraged person, virtually any solid object can be dangerous. A recent prohibited weapons case in Massachusetts focused on switchblades – and whether they meet the constitutional definition of a “dangerous weapon.”

Massachusetts Ends Restriction on Carrying a Switchblade

In 2020, Boston police broke up a quarrel between a boyfriend and girlfriend. When questioned alone, the girlfriend claimed that her boyfriend had taken her phone – refusing to give it back. Witnesses also said they saw the boyfriend push her up against a wall. The police proceeded to arrest the boyfriend – and they searched him. During this search, they found a knife with a spring-assisted mechanism – also known as a “switchblade.” Note that there was no evidence that he used the switchblade against his girlfriend.

The defendant faced two charges: Assault and battery on a household member and carrying a dangerous weapon. During his subsequent trial, the defendant admitted that the knife met the definition of a switchblade – but he argued that he had the right to carry it based on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Specifically, he claimed that the switchblade met the definition of an “arm,” and he had the right to “bear” this arm under the Second Amendment.

Although this argument was initially dismissed, the defendant appealed – and had his domestic assault and battery charge dropped in the meantime. Eventually, the appellate court considered whether a Massachusetts resident should have the constitutional right to carry a switchblade for self-defense.

First, the court determined that the trial court was incorrect when it said that the Second Amendment only defines “arms” as firearms. Next, they referred to the Heller decision in 2008, which supported the Second Amendment and rejected States’ attempts to limit this constitutional right. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that a handgun ban in DC was unconstitutional – and that weapons do not need to be “disabled” when stored at home for self-defense.

The court also found that knives were “ubiquitous” among early American settlers for self-defense – concluding that the Founding Fathers almost certainly included blades in the catch-all phrase “arms.” Finally, the court went through and categorically dismissed all of the various contentions made against switchblades – concluding that “nothing about the physical qualities of switchblades suggests they are inherently dangerous.” In fact, the Commonwealth noted that switchblades are particularly suited for self-defense because the user can use their other hand to call for help with a cell phone.

The defendant’s dangerous weapon conviction was reversed, and this ruling now makes switchblades legal to carry in Massachusetts.

Can a Boston Defense Lawyer Help With My Weapons Charges?

If you have been accused of carrying a prohibited or dangerous weapon, a defense attorney in Boston may be able to help. During a consultation with one of these individuals, you can discuss your unique priorities and concerns in more detail. Online research only provides broad, vague guidance – and a lawyer can take your defense strategy to the next level. Reach out to Edward R. Molari today to get started.

Tags:

Criminal Defense

Dangerous Weapon

Armed Assault to Murder

Armed Assault to Rob

Assault with Dangerous Weapon

Assault and Battery with Dangerous Weapon