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.
18 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1989–2026 2 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. McCarthygreen2 sentences2017The question posed by a McCarthy motion is whether the grand jury were presented with "sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the accused and probable cause to *542 arrest him." Commonwealth v. Bell , 83 Mass. App. Ct. 61 , 63, 981 N.E.2d 200 (2013), citing Commonwealth v. McCarthy , 385 Mass. at 163 , 430 N.E.2d 1195 , and Commonwealth v. O'Dell , 392 Mass. 445 , 450, 466 N.E.2d 828 (1984). 2017The question posed by a McCarthy motion is whether the grand jury were presented with "sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the accused and probable cause to *542 arrest him." Commonwealth v. Bell , 83 Mass. App. Ct. 61 , 63, 981 N.E.2d 200 (2013), citing Commonwealth v. McCarthy , 385 Mass. at 163 , 430 N.E.2d 1195 , and Commonwealth v. O'Dell , 392 Mass. 445 , 450, 466 N.E.2d 828 (1984). | 5 | 11 |
Commonwealth v. Bellgreen2 sentences2026"The question posed by a McCarthy motion is whether the grand jury were presented with ' sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the accused and probable cause to arrest -3- him." ' Commonwealth v. Johnson, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 538, 541-542 (2017), quoting Commonwealth v. Bell, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 61, 63 (2013). 2026"T he question posed by a McCarthy motion is whether the grand jury were presented with ' sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the accused and probable cause to arrest him."' Johnson, 92 Mass. App. Ct. at 541-542 , quoting Commonwealth v. Bell, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 61, 63 (2013). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. O'DELLgreen2 sentences2017The question posed by a McCarthy motion is whether the grand jury were presented with "sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the accused and probable cause to *542 arrest him." Commonwealth v. Bell , 83 Mass. App. Ct. 61 , 63, 981 N.E.2d 200 (2013), citing Commonwealth v. McCarthy , 385 Mass. at 163 , 430 N.E.2d 1195 , and Commonwealth v. O'Dell , 392 Mass. 445 , 450, 466 N.E.2d 828 (1984). 2017The question posed by a McCarthy motion is whether the grand jury were presented with "sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the accused and probable cause to *542 arrest him." Commonwealth v. Bell , 83 Mass. App. Ct. 61 , 63, 981 N.E.2d 200 (2013), citing Commonwealth v. McCarthy , 385 Mass. at 163 , 430 N.E.2d 1195 , and Commonwealth v. O'Dell , 392 Mass. 445 , 450, 466 N.E.2d 828 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2026"The question posed by a McCarthy motion is whether the grand jury were presented with ' sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the accused and probable cause to arrest -3- him." ' Commonwealth v. Johnson, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 538, 541-542 (2017), quoting Commonwealth v. Bell, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 61, 63 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2016To survive a McCarthy challenge, the evidence presented to the grand jury must consist of “reasonably trustworthy information . . . sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant had committed or was committing an offense.” Hanright, 466 Mass. at 311 -12, quoting Commonwealth v. Stevens, 362 Mass. 24, 26 (1972). 2016To survive a McCarthy challenge, the evidence presented to the grand jury must consist of “reasonably trustworthy information . . . sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant had committed or was committing an offense.” Hanright, 466 Mass. at 311 -12, quoting Commonwealth v. Stevens, 362 Mass. 24, 26 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Romangreen2 sentences2012As relevant to this case, that statute provides that: “Whoever knowingly. . . possesses a .. . photograph or other similar visual reproduction, ... of any child whom the person knows or reasonably should know to be under the age of 18 years of age and such child is: . . . (vii) depicted or portrayed in any pose, posture or setting involving lewd exhibition of the unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person is female, a fully or partially developed breast of the child; with knowledge of the nature or content thereof shall be punished . . .” 4 When presented with a McCarthy motio 2012“The evidence before the grand juiy must consist of reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a reasonable or prudent person in believing that the defendant has committed the offense.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Silvagreen1 sentence2002The second motion to dismiss, a “McCarthy motion” (see Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160 [1982]), was predicated on the test for the sufficiency of evidence in a perjury prosecution, adopted in Commonwealth v. Silva, 401 Mass. 318, 324 (1987), that the evidence offered to corroborate the direct evidence of peijury “ ‘must be of a direct or clear and compelling character,’ Commonwealth v. Coleman, 20 Mass. App. Ct. [541,] 558 [(1985), S.C., 397 Mass. 1001 (1986)], ‘objectively inconsistent with the innocence of the defendant.’ Id. at 557 & n.21.” All that was before the grand jury, the de | 1 | 1 |
Greenfield Country Estates Tenants Ass'n v. Deepgreen1 sentence1999The DiMinicos had actual notice of McCarthy’s claim to the property and assumed the risk of a result favorable to McCarthy. 7 Cf. Greenfield, supra at 89 (specific performance was proper remedy to enforce option to purchase real property; right not extinguished by sale to third party with notice). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hasongreen2 sentences1989Probable cause requires more than mere suspicion but something less than evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction.” Commonwealth v. Hason, 387 Mass. 169, 174 (1982). 7 Several of the defendant’s arguments contained in his brief appear to address the sufficiency of the evidence under the required finding of not guilty standard and not the McCarthy standard. 1989Probable cause requires more than mere suspicion but something less than evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction.” Commonwealth v. Hason, 387 Mass. 169, 174 (1982). 7 Several of the defendant’s arguments contained in his brief appear to address the sufficiency of the evidence under the required finding of not guilty standard and not the McCarthy standard. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Farrisgreen1 sentence1989See Mass.R.Crim.P. 36 (b)(2)(A)(vii); Barry v. Commonwealth, 390 Mass. at 294. | 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. Gallant
green
2 sentences2017For example, she highlighted that the medical records appear to indicate that while there initially was cause for concern that the victim had suffered a skull fracture, follow-up imaging of the victim's head appears to indicate that no such fracture occurred. 10 , 11 Resolution of a McCarthy motion does not *543 require such parsing of *418 the evidence. 12 As long has been established, the Commonwealth need not produce to the grand jury "the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction." Commonwealth v. Gallant , 453 Mass. 535 , 541, 2017For example, she highlighted that the medical records appear to indicate that while there initially was cause for concern that the victim had suffered a skull fracture, follow-up imaging of the victim's head appears to indicate that no such fracture occurred. 10 , 11 Resolution of a McCarthy motion does not *543 require such parsing of *418 the evidence. 12 As long has been established, the Commonwealth need not produce to the grand jury "the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction." Commonwealth v. Gallant , 453 Mass. 535 , 541, | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Hanright
green
2 sentences2016To survive a McCarthy challenge, the evidence presented to the grand jury must consist of “reasonably trustworthy information . . . sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant had committed or was committing an offense.” Hanright, 466 Mass. at 311 -12, quoting Commonwealth v. Stevens, 362 Mass. 24, 26 (1972). 2016To survive a McCarthy challenge, the evidence presented to the grand jury must consist of “reasonably trustworthy information . . . sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant had committed or was committing an offense.” Hanright, 466 Mass. at 311 -12, quoting Commonwealth v. Stevens, 362 Mass. 24, 26 (1972). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Bruno
green
2 sentences2014The last time we cited McCarthy with respect to its retroactivity analysis was fourteen years ago, and that was in Bruno, 432 Mass. at 498 , where we applied the new legal consequences test. 2014The last time we cited McCarthy with respect to its retroactivity analysis was fourteen years ago, and that was in Bruno, 432 Mass. at 498 , where we applied the new legal consequences test. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Moffett
green
1 sentence2008The defendant contends, by means of a separately filed brief pursuant to Commonwealth v. Moffett, 383 Mass. 201 (1981), that the indictments underlying his convictions were dismissed as a result of the judge’s March 5, 2004, ruling on a pretrial “McCarthy motion” to dismiss. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Conmmonwealth v. Coleman
green
2 sentences2002The second motion to dismiss, a “McCarthy motion” (see Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160 [1982]), was predicated on the test for the sufficiency of evidence in a perjury prosecution, adopted in Commonwealth v. Silva, 401 Mass. 318, 324 (1987), that the evidence offered to corroborate the direct evidence of peijury “ ‘must be of a direct or clear and compelling character,’ Commonwealth v. Coleman, 20 Mass. App. Ct. [541,] 558 [(1985), S.C., 397 Mass. 1001 (1986)], ‘objectively inconsistent with the innocence of the defendant.’ Id. at 557 & n.21.” All that was before the grand jury, the de 2002The second motion to dismiss, a “McCarthy motion” (see Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160 [1982]), was predicated on the test for the sufficiency of evidence in a perjury prosecution, adopted in Commonwealth v. Silva, 401 Mass. 318, 324 (1987), that the evidence offered to corroborate the direct evidence of peijury “ ‘must be of a direct or clear and compelling character,’ Commonwealth v. Coleman, 20 Mass. App. Ct. [541,] 558 [(1985), S.C., 397 Mass. 1001 (1986)], ‘objectively inconsistent with the innocence of the defendant.’ Id. at 557 & n.21.” All that was before the grand jury, the de | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.