Massachusetts G.L. c. 266, § 30(5): Larceny From a Person 60 or Older or With a Disability
If your charging documents reference G.L. c. 266, § 30(5), you have been charged with larceny from a person who was 60 or older, or who has a disability. The maximum here is ten years, and the felony line is $250, not the $1,200 that applies to larceny generally.
These cases often involve family members, caregivers, or people who had an existing financial arrangement with the person named in the complaint. They usually turn on two questions: whether there was consent, and what you actually believed at the time.
Call (978) 969-2890 for a free consultation.
You Just Got Charged. Here's What You Need to Know.
For over 30 years, we have helped people through exactly what you're experiencing right now. A charge under G.L. c. 266, § 30(5) carries a label that sounds far worse than what many of these cases actually involve, and it falls hardest on people who were close to the person named in the complaint. We have represented people accused of theft charges where the facts were far more complicated than a police report suggested, including cases built on an arrangement that soured long after the money changed hands.
Call (978) 969-2890 for a free consultation.
Call (978) 969-2890 for a free consultation.
What Does G.L. c. 266, § 30(5) Prohibit?
Subsection (5) is not a separate crime. It is the general larceny offense with one ingredient added: the property belonged to, or was possessed by, a person 60 years of age or older, or a person with a disability. Everything else works the same way, and the same three routes to a larceny conviction are covered, whether the allegation is that property was taken outright, obtained by a false pretense, or converted after being entrusted to you.
A person with a disability, for purposes of this statute, is someone with a permanent or long-term physical or mental impairment that prevents or restricts their ability to provide for their own care or protection. The age line is a bright line at 60, five years below the 65-year line in the neighboring statute covering takings directly from a person.
What the subsection changes is the exposure. The line separating the felony from the lesser offense is $250, and the maximum rises to ten years. The Commonwealth does not have to prove that you knew the person was 60 or older, or that you knew they had a disability. It has to prove that they were.
A person with a disability, for purposes of this statute, is someone with a permanent or long-term physical or mental impairment that prevents or restricts their ability to provide for their own care or protection. The age line is a bright line at 60, five years below the 65-year line in the neighboring statute covering takings directly from a person.
What the subsection changes is the exposure. The line separating the felony from the lesser offense is $250, and the maximum rises to ten years. The Commonwealth does not have to prove that you knew the person was 60 or older, or that you knew they had a disability. It has to prove that they were.
Section 30(5) vs. Section 25: Two Different Age Lines
Larceny from an elder or person with a disability (G.L. c. 266, § 30(5)) and larceny from the person (G.L. c. 266, § 25) overlap constantly, and the differences between them are easy to miss. Subsection (5) turns on whose property was taken. Section 25 turns on where the property was when it was taken: on the person, or in the area they controlled while they were present.
The age lines are different, and neither is a misprint. Subsection (5) reaches a person 60 years of age or older, and separately reaches a person with a disability of any age. Section 25(a) reaches a person 65 years of age or older and says nothing about disability at all.
The penalties differ too, and not in the direction most people assume. Section 25 carries a maximum of five years, authorizes no fine, and makes the value of the property irrelevant. Subsection (5) carries a maximum of ten years, a fine of up to $50,000, and a felony line at $250. One set of facts can support either charge, and which one the Commonwealth brings changes what is at stake.
The age lines are different, and neither is a misprint. Subsection (5) reaches a person 60 years of age or older, and separately reaches a person with a disability of any age. Section 25(a) reaches a person 65 years of age or older and says nothing about disability at all.
The penalties differ too, and not in the direction most people assume. Section 25 carries a maximum of five years, authorizes no fine, and makes the value of the property irrelevant. Subsection (5) carries a maximum of ten years, a fine of up to $50,000, and a felony line at $250. One set of facts can support either charge, and which one the Commonwealth brings changes what is at stake.
What the Prosecution Must Prove
To convict you of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. A taking and carrying away — You took property and moved it, even slightly, from where it was.
2. Property of a person 60 or older, or with a disability — The property was owned or possessed by someone other than you, and that person was 60 years of age or older, or had a disability, on the date of the alleged offense.
3. Intent to deprive permanently — You intended to keep the property from its owner for good, rather than to borrow it or to take something you honestly believed was yours.
Value is not an element. If there is a conviction, the jury is asked separately whether the Commonwealth proved the property was worth more than $250, because that answer sets the sentencing range available to the judge. The current model instruction for this offense announces four elements and then lists three, which is worth knowing if you ever see it quoted.
1. A taking and carrying away — You took property and moved it, even slightly, from where it was.
2. Property of a person 60 or older, or with a disability — The property was owned or possessed by someone other than you, and that person was 60 years of age or older, or had a disability, on the date of the alleged offense.
3. Intent to deprive permanently — You intended to keep the property from its owner for good, rather than to borrow it or to take something you honestly believed was yours.
Value is not an element. If there is a conviction, the jury is asked separately whether the Commonwealth proved the property was worth more than $250, because that answer sets the sentencing range available to the judge. The current model instruction for this offense announces four elements and then lists three, which is worth knowing if you ever see it quoted.
Penalties Under Massachusetts Law
Penalties under subsection (5) turn on a single number, and it is not the number most people expect. The felony line here is $250.
Property Worth More Than $250 (Felony)
● Up to 10 years in state prison, OR
● Up to 2 and a half years in the house of correction, or a fine of up to $50,000, or both a fine and imprisonment
● Up to 2 and a half years in the house of correction, or a fine of up to $50,000, or both a fine and imprisonment
Property Worth $250 or Less
● Up to 2 and a half years in the house of correction, OR
● A fine of up to $1,000, or both a fine and imprisonment
● A fine of up to $1,000, or both a fine and imprisonment
Why the Threshold Is $250 and Not $1,200
● The 2018 law that raised the general larceny felony line to $1,200 left this subsection untouched
● A taking that would be a misdemeanor against anyone else can be charged as a ten-year felony here, on the same dollar amount
● A taking that would be a misdemeanor against anyone else can be charged as a ten-year felony here, on the same dollar amount
Restitution
● The statute allows the court to order restitution regardless of the value of the property
● What restitution is owed, and to whom, is often the center of how a case like this resolves
● What restitution is owed, and to whom, is often the center of how a case like this resolves
Collateral Consequences
● Criminal record affecting employment opportunities
● Difficulty obtaining housing (landlord background checks)
● Professional license implications
● Immigration consequences for non-citizens
● Loss of certain civil rights
● Restitution orders requiring repayment to victim
● Difficulty obtaining housing (landlord background checks)
● Professional license implications
● Immigration consequences for non-citizens
● Loss of certain civil rights
● Restitution orders requiring repayment to victim
Related Criminal Charges
● G.L. c. 266, § 30: Larceny — The general larceny statute, of which this subsection is the enhanced form.
● G.L. c. 266, § 25: Larceny From the Person — Charged where the property was taken from a person or from their immediate control, with an age line at 65 rather than 60.
● G.L. c. 265, § 13K: Assault and Battery on an Elder or Person With a Disability — Frequently charged alongside this offense where the allegation includes physical contact.
● G.L. c. 266, § 37E: Identity Fraud — Charged where the allegation involves using another person's identifying information or accounts.
Related Practice Area: Elder Larceny Defense
● G.L. c. 266, § 25: Larceny From the Person — Charged where the property was taken from a person or from their immediate control, with an age line at 65 rather than 60.
● G.L. c. 265, § 13K: Assault and Battery on an Elder or Person With a Disability — Frequently charged alongside this offense where the allegation includes physical contact.
● G.L. c. 266, § 37E: Identity Fraud — Charged where the allegation involves using another person's identifying information or accounts.
Related Practice Area: Elder Larceny Defense
Defending Against Larceny From an Elder or Person With a Disability
These cases are rarely simple thefts. Most of them begin as an arrangement: a loan, a gift, a shared account, a power of attorney, help with errands and bills that went on for years. What separates a crime from a family dispute is consent, and consent is usually what is actually in dispute, often long afterward, when someone else looks at a bank statement and draws a conclusion about what must have happened.
Two points of law matter a great deal here and are widely misunderstood. The first is that the Commonwealth does not have to prove you knew the person's age or knew they had a disability. The second cuts the other way, in your favor: where the theory is that an apparently agreed transaction was not truly agreed to because the person lacked the capacity to agree, and you raise an honest claim of right to the property, the Commonwealth must prove you actually knew they lacked that capacity. Proof that you should have known is not enough, and a case decided on the wrong standard is a case that can be undone.
There is a further point that the standard jury instruction for this offense still states incorrectly. That instruction describes the claim of right defense as requiring an honest and reasonable belief in a right to the property. Under Massachusetts law the belief need only be honest. It does not have to be objectively reasonable, and once the issue is properly raised, the Commonwealth has to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Making sure the correct standard is the one a jury actually hears can decide a case like this. Call (978) 969-2890.
Two points of law matter a great deal here and are widely misunderstood. The first is that the Commonwealth does not have to prove you knew the person's age or knew they had a disability. The second cuts the other way, in your favor: where the theory is that an apparently agreed transaction was not truly agreed to because the person lacked the capacity to agree, and you raise an honest claim of right to the property, the Commonwealth must prove you actually knew they lacked that capacity. Proof that you should have known is not enough, and a case decided on the wrong standard is a case that can be undone.
There is a further point that the standard jury instruction for this offense still states incorrectly. That instruction describes the claim of right defense as requiring an honest and reasonable belief in a right to the property. Under Massachusetts law the belief need only be honest. It does not have to be objectively reasonable, and once the issue is properly raised, the Commonwealth has to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Making sure the correct standard is the one a jury actually hears can decide a case like this. Call (978) 969-2890.
What To Do Right Now
If you have been charged under G.L. c. 266, § 30(5), taking the right steps now can make a significant difference in your case.
● Do not talk to police without a lawyer present
● Do not discuss your case with anyone except your attorney
● Do not post anything about your case on social media
● Preserve any evidence that might help your defense, including bank records, texts, receipts, and anything showing what was agreed and when
● Write down everything you remember about the arrangement, who was present for it, and what was said, while it is fresh
Contact an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney immediately.
Call (978) 969-2890. We answer 24/7.
● Do not talk to police without a lawyer present
● Do not discuss your case with anyone except your attorney
● Do not post anything about your case on social media
● Preserve any evidence that might help your defense, including bank records, texts, receipts, and anything showing what was agreed and when
● Write down everything you remember about the arrangement, who was present for it, and what was said, while it is fresh
Contact an experienced Massachusetts criminal defense attorney immediately.
Call (978) 969-2890. We answer 24/7.
We're Here To Help
A charge like this can feel overwhelming, particularly when the person involved is someone you know or care about. There are often favorable options available.
We have spent over 30 years helping people through theft charges and understand how to work toward the best possible outcome. A free consultation gives you the opportunity to understand your charges and options. Everything we discuss is confidential. Go here if you want to know why working with us is the right choice.
Call (978) 969-2890 for a free consultation. Serving Greater Boston and Eastern Massachusetts.
H. Ernest Stone, Attorney PC
900 Cummings Center, Suite 321-U
Beverly, MA 01915
Phones answered 24/7 by a real person.
We have spent over 30 years helping people through theft charges and understand how to work toward the best possible outcome. A free consultation gives you the opportunity to understand your charges and options. Everything we discuss is confidential. Go here if you want to know why working with us is the right choice.
Call (978) 969-2890 for a free consultation. Serving Greater Boston and Eastern Massachusetts.
H. Ernest Stone, Attorney PC
900 Cummings Center, Suite 321-U
Beverly, MA 01915
Phones answered 24/7 by a real person.
We'll Get You Through the Storm
Contact our team today for a free consultation. We are available 24/7.
