Matthew B. Sperry

<< Back to Matthew Sperry's profile

Criminal Law

Possession of Alcohol by a Minor. An open bottle of alcohol was found in the client’s bedroom at his parents’ home while the client was not home. Later, after the police confronted him with the bottle, the client admitted to the police that the alcohol was his. At trial, Mr. Sperry successfully obtained a directed finding on the legal doctrine of corpus delicti, in that the State failed to show that adults over the age of 21 did not have access to the room and alcohol in question, and it was not a crime for adults to possess alcohol. Mr. Sperry then argued that absent other evidence that a crime occurred, Mr. Sperry’s client’s admission alone was not legally sufficient for conviction. The Court agreed and the CHARGES WERE DISMISSED with prejudice.

Possession of Marijuana. Mr. Sperry represented a client who was pulled over on two separate occasions by the same police officer for having one brake light out of three out. On each occasion, Mr. Sperry’s client was alleged to have possessed marijuana in the automobile. In a consolidated motion to suppress between the two cases, Mr. Sperry successfully argued that the police officer lacked probable cause to pull over his client due to the taillight being out, as the controlling law stated that an automobile shall have two functional brake lights. The Court agreed and suppressed the marijuana found in the car, resulting in DISMISSALS OF BOTH CHARGES as well as the underlying traffic tickets for having a brake light out.

Domestic Battery. Mr. Sperry’s client was charged with battering his girlfriend, and then dropping her off from his car at his girlfriend’s mother’s home. The girlfriend went directly inside, locked the front door, and told her mother in detail that Mr. Sperry’s client had beaten her. When the girlfriend did not appear at trial, the State Attorney attempted to proceed with the trial by having the girlfriend’s mother testify as to what the girlfriend told her about the alleged beating. Mr. Sperry successfully argued that all of the girlfriend’s statements should be excluded from evidence as inadmissible hearsay, and the Court agreed, ultimately resulting in the State Attorney moving to DISMISS THE CASE.

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. Mr. Sperry co-chaired a jury trial which involved an able-bodied client who was observed by police parked in a handicapped spot while having difficulty keeping his balance. After he left the handicapped parking spot, the police pulled over Mr. Sperry’s client for the handicap parking violation. The police alleged that they found open containers of alcohol within the vehicle, and further charged that Mr. Sperry’s client was intoxicated. The client refused all sobriety tests and the breathalyzer, but proceeded to act belligerently and erratically throughout his arrest toward the police. A few of the client’s alleged behaviors included smashing his own head against the wall, swearing, and mumbling. It was successfully argued at trial that just acting rudely and erratically toward the police is not proof of drunkenness, and that the police car camera failed to show the police pulling the alcohol bottles from the car. While the jury found Mr. Sperry’s client to have committed the petty offense of illegally parking in a handicapped zone, the jury also returned NOT GUILTY verdicts on the transportation of open alcohol containers and driving under the influence.

Felony Theft. Mr. Sperry successfully negotiated a plea for a client who was accused of committing a Class 1 Felony Theft involving embezzlement in excess of $100,000 from an incapacitated elderly woman down to a Class 4 Felony Theft with no jail time, 1 year probation, and with the only restitution due in the criminal case of $25,000.

Disorderly Conduct. Mr. Sperry successfully represented a client accused of committing disorderly conduct by sending lewd emails to a neighbor after being told to cease emailing the same neighbor by the police. At trial, Mr. Sperry successfully obtained a directed verdict, with the court finding that the client did not engage in any conduct that could be considered disorderly. The client was found NOT GUILTY.