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 1 courts 1983–2013 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. Pring-Wilsongreen1 sentence2013We disagree, because our rule allowing judges to admit Adjutant evidence is “a matter of common-law principle,” Adjutant, supra at 650 , and “not constitutionally mandated.” Commonwealth v. Pring-Wilson, 448 Mass. 718, 736 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Kater v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2006When a judge “declares a mistrial because of a hung jury and the defendant has moved for a required finding of not guilty, the Commonwealth must have presented evidence legally sufficient to support a conviction at the first trial, or jeopardy terminates for State law purposes, and ‘the retrial of the defendant . . . would violate this State’s common law principles of double jeopardy.’ ” 5 Corson v. Commonwealth, 428 Mass. 193, 196 (1998), quoting Kater v. Commonwealth, 421 Mass. 17, 19 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Corson v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2006When a judge “declares a mistrial because of a hung jury and the defendant has moved for a required finding of not guilty, the Commonwealth must have presented evidence legally sufficient to support a conviction at the first trial, or jeopardy terminates for State law purposes, and ‘the retrial of the defendant . . . would violate this State’s common law principles of double jeopardy.’ ” 5 Corson v. Commonwealth, 428 Mass. 193, 196 (1998), quoting Kater v. Commonwealth, 421 Mass. 17, 19 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Stewartgreen1 sentence1986See Commonwealth v. Stewart, 483 Pa. 176, 182 (1978); State v. Tribble, 428 A.2d 1079,1083 (R.I. 1981). 1 The incidents must not be remote (a discretionary matter for the trial judge) and other competent evidence must raise the question whether the defendant may have acted justifiably in his own defense. 2 The admission of evidence of specific acts of violence known to the defendant is not without its potential disadvantages. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tribblegreen1 sentence1986See Commonwealth v. Stewart, 483 Pa. 176, 182 (1978); State v. Tribble, 428 A.2d 1079,1083 (R.I. 1981). 1 The incidents must not be remote (a discretionary matter for the trial judge) and other competent evidence must raise the question whether the defendant may have acted justifiably in his own defense. 2 The admission of evidence of specific acts of violence known to the defendant is not without its potential disadvantages. | 1 | 1 |
Trammel v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1983The exclusion of testimony concerning the parents' nonconfidential words and deeds would not promote "sufficiently important interests" so as "to outweigh the need for probative evidence in the administration of criminal justice." Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50-51 (1980). 1983The exclusion of testimony concerning the parents’ nonconfidential words and deeds would not promote “sufficiently important interests” so as “to outweigh the need for probative evidence in the administration of criminal justice.” Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50-51 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Fickett
green
2 sentences2010The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States probably requires the same conclusion.” Commonwealth v. Fickett, 403 Mass. 194 , 199 n.4 (1988). 2006Cf. Commonwealth v. Fickett, 403 Mass. 194 , 199 n.4 (1988) (stating, in dicta, that “as a matter of common law principle ... if a defendant demonstrates on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to warrant his conviction of a crime on a particular theory, on retrial for the same crime the prosecutor may rely on other theories justifying his conviction that were supported by the evidence at the first trial but may not rely on a theory that should not have been given to the jury at the first trial” [emphasis added]). 3 The issue is obviated because we agree with the single justice that the C | 2 | 2006–2010 |
Commonwealth v. Adjutant
green
1 sentence2013We disagree, because our rule allowing judges to admit Adjutant evidence is “a matter of common-law principle,” Adjutant, supra at 650 , and “not constitutionally mandated.” Commonwealth v. Pring-Wilson, 448 Mass. 718, 736 (2007). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.