5 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2023 1 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. Lourencogreen2 sentences2023But see Commonwealth v. Lourenco, 438 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2003) (question "whether the overt act requirement remains valid to describe fully and plainly the charge of attempt to the defendant, or if it reflects an anachronistic view of sufficient indictments and complaints"). 34 v. Fernandes, 430 Mass. 517, 520 (1999), cert. denied sub nom. 2020In Commonwealth v. Lourenco, 438 Mass. 1018, 1018 (2003), the Supreme Judicial Court questioned whether "the overt act requirement remains valid to describe fully and plainly the charge of attempt to the defendant, or if it reflects an anachronistic view of sufficient indictments and complaints." The court committed the matter to study and in the ensuing seventeen years there has been no further comment. | 2 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Burnsgreen1 sentence2020L. c. 274, § 6, and the overt act relied on must be set out in the indictment or complaint"); Commonwealth v. Burns, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 194, 196-197 (1979) ("The overt acts relied upon to support a charge of attempt must be alleged in the complaint charging the crime"). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Anolikgreen1 sentence2020See Commonwealth v. Gosselin, 365 Mass 116, 121 (1974) (only completed act was charged and "[o]vert acts not alleged may not be relied upon"); Commonwealth v. Anolik, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 701, 711 (1989) (reversing conviction where indictment failed to allege overt act); Commonwealth v. Foley, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 114, 115 (1987) ("The overt act is a requirement of the attempt statute, G. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Foleygreen1 sentence2020See Commonwealth v. Gosselin, 365 Mass 116, 121 (1974) (only completed act was charged and "[o]vert acts not alleged may not be relied upon"); Commonwealth v. Anolik, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 701, 711 (1989) (reversing conviction where indictment failed to allege overt act); Commonwealth v. Foley, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 114, 115 (1987) ("The overt act is a requirement of the attempt statute, G. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Ortizgreen1 sentence2009In Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 408 Mass. 463, 464-465, 472 (1990), this court’s most recent decision regarding the overt act requirement, we determined that where the defendant got into an automobile with a fully loaded firearm and drove to the neighborhood where a foe lived, circling the block six times in search of the person, and then drove home, there was evidence that the defendant “intended and prepared for an assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon,” but there was not enough evidence to show an overt act that would render the defendant guilty of attempt. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hebertgreen1 sentence2001In this case, it is arguable that the flames from the fire set by the defendant were never close enough to her children to constitute an attempted battery, although setting fire to the house did constitute an overt act beyond mere preparation sufficient to meet the overt act requirement of attempted murder. 9 See Commonwealth v. Hebert, 373 Mass. at 543 (Quirico, J., concurring, citing Perkins, Criminal Law 578 [2d ed. 1969]) (“the acts necessary to constitute an assault with intent to commit a particular crime must come closer to success than those required for an attempt to commit that crime | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Lourencogreen2 sentences2023But see Commonwealth v. Lourenco, 438 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2003) (question "whether the overt act requirement remains valid to describe fully and plainly the charge of attempt to the defendant, or if it reflects an anachronistic view of sufficient indictments and complaints"). 34 v. Fernandes, 430 Mass. 517, 520 (1999), cert. denied sub nom. 2020In Commonwealth v. Lourenco, 438 Mass. 1018, 1018 (2003), the Supreme Judicial Court questioned whether "the overt act requirement remains valid to describe fully and plainly the charge of attempt to the defendant, or if it reflects an anachronistic view of sufficient indictments and complaints." The court committed the matter to study and in the ensuing seventeen years there has been no further comment. | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Fernandesgreen1 sentence2023But see Commonwealth v. Lourenco, 438 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2003) (question "whether the overt act requirement remains valid to describe fully and plainly the charge of attempt to the defendant, or if it reflects an anachronistic view of sufficient indictments and complaints"). 34 v. Fernandes, 430 Mass. 517, 520 (1999), cert. denied sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gonzalez v. West
green
1 sentence2023Martinez v. Massachusetts, 530 U.S. 1281 (2000). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Hamel
green
1 sentence2009Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Hamel, supra at 256-260 , the Appeals Court found that where the defendant solicited two “hitmen” to commit four murders, made partial payment, described the intended victims, and drew sketches of the home of three of the victims, these preparations did not constitute an overt act within the meaning of the statute that came close enough to the commission of the murders. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.