Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Ruffengreen2 sentences2009“The curative admissibility doctrine allows a party harmed by incompetent evidence to rebut that evidence ... if the original evidence created significant prejudice.” Commonwealth v. Ruffen, 399 Mass. 811, 813-814 (1987). 2005We held that, because the “jury heard the officer testify that the victim made an accusation by relating her story in front of the defendant ... the defendant should have been allowed, under the doctrine of curative admissibility, to present testimony that he denied the accusations.” Id. at 813 . | 4 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. O'Briengreen1 sentence2009Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 423 Mass. 841, 848-849 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Tuittgreen1 sentence1994See Commonwealth v. Tuitt, 393 Mass. 801, 809 (1985). 3 In Commonwealth v. Ruffen, 399 Mass. 811, 813-814 (1987), on which the defendant relies for support, the court stated that “the curative admissibility doctrine allows a party harmed by incompetent evidence to rebut that evidence only if the original evidence created significant prejudice.” Without a showing that some evidence presented was incompetent, the defendant’s reliance on this doctrine is misguided. 4 The defense request for a consciousness of guilt instruction included the following: “In considering whether evidence that the defe | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wakelingreen1 sentence1990See Commonwealth v. Wakelin, 230 Mass. 567, 576 (1918); Commonwealth v. Ruffen, 399 Mass. 811, 812-814 (1987); Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence 444 (5th ed. 1981 & Supp. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.