On Jun 1, 7:12 am, Ryan <MD2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was charged yesterday with larceny after taking my gf (then gf I
> should say) cable modem while she watched me doing it.
Her watching you do it doesn't make it any less a larceny. The grocer who watches a kid shoplift an apple from the box in front of his store is also a victim of larceny. It doesn't have to be done in secret.
>..my intention
> was only to piss her off as she was calling the police because I had
> come into her house uninvited (via taking down the door which she
> wouldn't open).
I don't even know where to _begin_ with analyzing that statement, so I won't. Except to say, if you are worried about the definition of larceny, that seems to be the least of your worries.
> everything I'm reading about common law def of
> larceny is that motive or intent IS significant in that there has to
> be the intent to either keep the item permanently OR by taking even
> temporarily depriving of income by the temporary loss.
I strongly suspect that by now, MA has encoded a statutory definition of larceny (or the generic crime of theft) and no longer relies on the common law definition, with all its loopholes.
> I live 4
> houses down from her and was simply walking it back to my house out of
> spite or what have you.
I think the "what have you" is what gets you, here.
> I was extremely intoxicated and far from
> thinking logically
That is not a legal excuse for your actions and may well be used as evidence of an exacerbated level of culpability.
>.I was also charged with assault (without battery)
> as she states she was in fear of physical harm tho I made no
> encroachment upon her person.
My goodness, both of us are using big words. But the judge will be more interested in whether what you did, seen as a whole, scared the bejabbers out of your ex. It sure would've if I were her.
> my original goal was that I wanted to
> see something on her computer (chat log) and she had locked me out (up
> until that day I had a key, but it had been taken just prior to this)
So we add breaking and entering an occupied dwelling to your list of charges. Her locking you out and refusing to open meant she didn't want you to enter. It was her house, not yours.
> and I was livid drunk, and literally pushed the door open,
I thought you said you had "taken down" the door, as in, taken it off its hinges. Did you bash it in, breaking it? Not very likely to put the occupant at ease as to your intentions.
> walked directly to the computer room
To read her chat logs that you had no right to read?
> heard her on the phone with the police
She was calling the cops because what you had already done was bad enough...
> panicked and figured taking the modem would somehow give me
> some maneuvering room or something (again, wasn't thinking
> rationally).
I won't disagree with you there.
> The bottom line is that I know that she knows that I
> wasn't taking the modem permanently, I was announcing I was taking it
> as I took it, etc.
As noted above, IMO this amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Fugeddabout whether or not you intended to deprive her permanently of possession of her chattel, step back and take a look at the totality of what you did, and for Pete's sake, start taking some anger management counseling AND alcohol abuse recovery steps now if you haven't already. If you do, it may go better for you at your criminal hearing. If you show up in court just as clueless about how really over the edge your conduct really was as your post so far makes you appear still to be, you will probably get the book thrown at you.
> Do I have a leg to stand on here?
Yes, get counseling and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. Seriously, I mean it. Otherwise you will come across to the judge as an unrepentant jerk looking for nonexistent loopholes to excuse your outrageous behavior..
> I fully recognize that I behaved
> ridiculously yesterday
Good, that's a start. But "ridiculously" doesn't go far enough. Comedians act ridiculously, and people laugh. Al Qaida terrorists who fly planes into buildings act outrageously, unspeakably, but they are not ridiculous. Nobody laughs. Which do you think is closer to what you did, in the mind of your ex?
> but I have never ever laid a finger on another
> human being and had no intention of keeping the modem
Um, I think you still don't get it. You BROKE INTO HER HOUSE, and you did it WHILE SHE WAS THERE, and you were ANGRY AND DRUNK, and you SCARED THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS out of her. Who gives a crap whether you intended to keep the modem or just wanted to figuratively give the bitch a well deserved spanking by taking it? (Pardon my French but that's the way your attitude comes across).
> I feel like
> the officers were trying to beef up the charges to maximize the
> penalty.
Sir, the larceny of modem charge is NOT the worst of the charges you face. And frankly, your argument that you took it for "disciplinary reasons" does not assist your main case. The bottom line is, your conduct VIOLATED this gal's private space and her right to peace of mind and security in her own home, in just about every way possible (short of physical battering or rape, but the mental effect on her of what you did is similar). Until you recognize that, you will not be helping optimize your own outcome from this mess.
> There was also an ensuing 209A which I didn't refute
I don't know what that is so I snopped the rest of that paragraph. If it was some form of a peace order barring you from approaching her or her premises, it seems well justified. Be GLAD you didn't take that opportunity to push your "I just took the modem to mentally slap the ho around a bit" argument.
> anyhow any advice? I have a public defender who seems to be a good guy
Yes, my advice is, follow your lawyer's advice.
> but he never mentioned to me yesterday that I did indeed have a right
> to refute the necessity for the 209A
He probably was thinking the same thing I'm thinking. What were _you_ thinking? What would you have refuted it with? "Judge, I didn't mean to keep the modem, I just wanted to teach the cheating floozy a lesson?"
> and I'm not thrilled about that
> either.
Think about it for awhile, and you may change your tune. Meanwhile, get counseling. Good luck turning your life around, and I mean that too.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment