Commonwealth v. Ambers (1976)

As in Commonwealth v. Underwood, 358 Mass. 506 (1970), we will not, absent a valid objection and exception, permit a second lawyer on appeal 'to convert the consequences of unsuccessful trial tactics and strategy into alleged errors ....’ Id. at 510 .” Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 841 (1976). 18 The prosecution contends that the defendant’s criticism based on counsel’s failure to request limiting instructions does not rest on an assignment of error.

L. c. 265, § 1) if the homicide followed naturally and probably from the carrying out of the joint enterprise.” Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839 (1976).

For a summary of the evidence presented at trial, and the issues raised on appeal, see Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 836-837 (1976).

Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839 (1976).

Accord, Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 365 Mass. 1, 8 (1974); Commonwealth v. Hogg, 365 Mass. 290, 296 (1974); Commonwealth v. Blow, 370 Mass. 401, 407-408 (1976); Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839 (1976) ; Commonwealth v. Scanlon, 373 Mass. 11, 17 (1977) ; Commonwealth v. Fillippini, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 606, 613 (1973); Commonwealth v. Mangula, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 785, 789 (1975); Commonwealth v. Perry, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 308, 312-313 (1975).

Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839 (1976).

Therefore, it is clear that conviction as an accessory before the fact requires “not only knowledge of the crime and a shared intent to bring it about, but also some sort of act that contributes to its happening.” Raposo, supra. See Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839 (1976) (a nonpresent joint venturer must “intentionally encourage or assist in the commission of a crime and have the requisite mental state”). 2 Indictment on counts two through six, therefore, required…

See Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 408 Mass. 463 ; 466-467 (1990); Commonwealth v. Matchett, 386 Mass. 492, 505 (1982); Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839 (1976).

Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839 (1976).

L. c. 265, § 1) if the homicide followed naturally and probably from the carrying out of the joint enterprise.” Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839 (1976).

In this case the flawed portion of the charge represented a slip of the tongue and was adequately corrected by a proper “emphasis on the necessity of moral certainty of guilt,” Commonwealth v. Williams, 378 Mass. 217, 233 (1979), and by other language in the charge. “[A] fair reading of the instructions, not treated in isolation but considered in light of the entire charge . . . , refutes any argument that the judge directed findings of fact, thereby invading the province of…

See Commonwealth v. Scanlon, 373 Mass. 11, 17 (1977); Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839 (1976); Commonwealth v. Richards, 363 Mass. 299, 307-308 (1973); Commonwealth v. Chinn, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 714, 716 (1978).

The evidence shows, he claims, only that he was present during the commission of the crime (see Commonwealth v. Clark, 363 Mass. 467, 473 [1973]; Commonwealth v. Benders, 361 Mass. 704, 708 [1972]) and not that he aided, assisted, or encouraged the others during its commission (see Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839 [1976]; Commonwealth v. Perry, 357 Mass. 149, 151 [1970]).

Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 838 (1976).

Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 838 (1976).

See Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839-840 (1976); People v. Aaron, 409 Mich. 672, 719 (1980).

See Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839 (1976) (a nonpresent joint venturer must “intentionally encourage or assist in the commission of a crime and have the requisite mental state”).

See Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839-840 (1976).

See Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 838 (1976).

See Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 839 (1976).

See Commonwealth v. Scanlon, 373 Mass. 11, 18 (1977). 9 “[A] fair reading of the instructions, not treated in isolation but considered in light of the entire charge . . . permitted the jury to determine the purpose and extent of the joint venture.” Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 840 (1976). 10 c.

See Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835 , 839 n.l (1976); Commonwealth v. Clark, 363 Mass. 467 , 473 n.2 (1973); Commonwealth v. Richards, supra at 306-307 ; Commonwealth v. Jones, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 750, 758-760 (1978); Commonwealth v. Mangula, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 785, 789 (1975).

See Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 838 (1976); Commonwealth v. Leavy, 369 Mass. 963 (1976); Commonwealth v. Underwood, 358 Mass. 506, 509 (1970); Commonwealth v. Foley, 358 Mass. 233, 236 (1970); Commonwealth v. Myers, 356 Mass. 343, 346-347 (1969).

See Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 838 (1976).

See Commonwealth v. Ambers, 370 Mass. 835, 838-839 (1976); Commonwealth v. Blow, 370 Mass. 401, 407 (1976); Commonwealth v. Hogg, 365 Mass. 290, 295-296 (1974); Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 365 Mass. 1, 9 (1974).