Have you or your loved one been charged with the above-reference offense? If so, call Attorney Scambio for a free consultation at 508-796-5737.
The Massachusetts Legislature defines Home invasion under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 265, § l 8C as follows:
Section 18C. Whoever knowingly enters the dwelling place of another knowing or having reason to know that one or more persons are present within or knowingly enters the dwelling place of another and remains in such dwelling place knowing or having reason to know that one or more persons are present within while armed with a dangerous weapon, uses force or threatens the imminent use of force upon any person within such dwelling place whether or not injury occurs, or intentionally causes any injury to any person within such dwelling place shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of not less than twenty years.
The model jury instructions requires the Commonwealth to prove the following in order for the Commonwealth to prove each element of the offense. The Commonwealth must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt at trial:
First: That the defendant entered the dwelling place of another.
Second: That the defendant knew or had reason to know that one or more persons were present within the dwelling house when entering, or alternatively, that the defendant remained in the dwelling place when he knew or had reason to know that one or more persons were present;
Third: That the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon at the time of entry; and
Fourth: That the defendant used force or threatened the imminent use of force on any person within the dwelling house, or alternatively, that the defendant intentionally caused injury to any person within the dwelling place.
The first element the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant entered the dwelling place of another. An entry is the unlawful making of one’s way into a dwelling. Entry occurs if any part of the defendant’s body, even a hand or foot, or any instrument or weapon controlled by the defendant physically enters the dwelling.
The Commonwealth must show that the premises were presently a place for the living and habitation of persons other than the defendant. Dwelling houses have been defined as buildings that may be used as dwellings, such as apartment houses, tenement houses, hotels, boarding houses, dormitories, hospitals, sanitoria or other buildings where persons are domiciled. The Commonwealth must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had no right of habitation or occupancy at the time of entry.
The second element the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knew or had reason to know that one or more persons were present within the dwelling.
This requires you to decide about the defendant’s state of mind at that time. It is obviously impossible to look directly into a person’s mind, but in our everyday affairs we often look to the actions of others to decide what their state of mind is. In this case, you may examine the defendant’s actions and words and all the surrounding circumstances to help you determine the extent of the defendant’s knowledge at that time. You should consider all the evidence and any reasonable inferences you draw from the evidence in determining whether the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as it must, that the defendant acted with knowledge that there were one or more persons within the dwelling at the time of entry.
In addition, the requirement that the defendant’s act must have been done “knowingly” to be a criminal offense means that it must have been done voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake, accident, negligence or other innocent reason. However, it is not necessary for the defendant to have known that there is a law that makes “home invasion” a crime, since generally ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating the law.
The third element the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon at the time of entry. This means that the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant had a dangerous weapon in his possession. A dangerous weapon is any instrument that by nature of its construction or the manner of its use is capable of causing grievous bodily injury or death or would be perceived by a reasonable person as capable of such injury. It is for you to decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not the instrument in this case was used in a dangerous manner so as to endanger the life or to inflict bodily injury. When making your decision, you may consider the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime, the nature and size of the object, and the manner that it was handled or used.
The fourth element the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant used force or threatened the imminent use of force on a person within the dwelling place. Whether injury occurred from this use of force or threatened use of force is not relevant to your determination. Alternatively, the Commonwealth may prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally caused injury to any person within the dwelling place.
If you have been charged with this offense and need a trial attorney with real trial experience and trial solutions, or if you have any questions related to this criminal offense, call Attorney Scambio today at 508-796-5737. Remember, before you decide whether to make any statements to law enforcement, discuss that decision with a competent attorney. Attorney Scambio is available six (6) days a week and will take your call to discuss assisting you in your criminal matter.