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.
13 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2011 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. Monsengreen2 sentences1983In Commonwealth v. Golston, 373 Mass. 249, 260 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1039 (1978), the court stated: “There is no requirement that the defendant know that his act was extremely atrocious or cruel, and no requirement of deliberate premeditation.” Finally, in Commonwealth v. Monsen, 377 Mass. 245 (1979), the court observed: “To import a mens rea requirement into the words ‘extreme atrocity or cruelty’ would be to blur the distinction between that form of murder in the first degree and the premeditated variety. . . . 1980A murder committed with malice aforethought may be found to have been committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty, even though the murderer did not know that his act was extremely atrocious or cruel.” In Commonwealth v. Appleby, 358 Mass. 407, 415 (1970), this court said: “It is not necessary ... to show that such atrocity or cruelty [with which the murder was committed] was premeditated or that the defendant knew his conduct constituted extreme atrocity or cruelty.” In the very recent case of Commonwealth v. Monsen, 377 Mass. 245, 254 (1979), we said: “To import a mens rea requirement into the | 2 | 3 |
Dennis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1992“While the ‘existence of a mens rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principle of Anglo-American jurisprudence,’ Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 500 (1951), it is just that — a general principle, not always a constitutionally mandated doctrine. 1982While the “existence of a mens rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of Anglo-American jurisprudence,” Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 500 (1951), it is just that — a general principle, not always a constitutionally mandated doctrine. | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Californiagreen2 sentences1992States may ‘create strict criminal liabilities by defining criminal offenses without any element of scienter.’ Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 150 (1959). 1982States may “create strict criminal liabilities by defining criminal offenses without any element of scienter.” 4 Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 150 (1959). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Bank of New England, N.A.green1 sentence2011Where a mens rea requirement of mere knowledge attaches to a material element of a statutorily-created crime unknown at common law, “[a] collective knowledge instruction is entirely appropriate in the context of corporate criminal liability.” United States v. Bank of New England, N.A., 821 F.2d 844, 856 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 943 (1987) (Bank of New England). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bacongreen1 sentence2006See Commonwealth v. Bacon, 374 Mass. at 361 (recognizing that obscenity conviction requires “knowledge of a more specific kind”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Delaneygreen1 sentence1998L. c. 209A, § 7, required at least minimal proof that he intended to do the act that resulted in the violation, and that the Commonwealth’s proof was insufficient to warrant such a finding. 4 In Commonwealth v. Delaney, 425 Mass. 587, 595-597 (1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 714 (1998), we considered the mens rea requirement necessary under G. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Crosscupgreen1 sentence1992See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Crosscup, 369 Mass. 228 , 234-235 & n.5 (1975); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 369 Mass. 904, 916 (1976); Commonwealth v. Buckley, 354 Mass. 508, 511-512 (1968); Commonwealth v. Dellamano, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 156, 157 (1983), S.C., 393 *229 Mass. 132 (1984); Commonwealth v. Wallace, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 358, 363-364 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Dellamanogreen1 sentence1992See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Crosscup, 369 Mass. 228 , 234-235 & n.5 (1975); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 369 Mass. 904, 916 (1976); Commonwealth v. Buckley, 354 Mass. 508, 511-512 (1968); Commonwealth v. Dellamano, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 156, 157 (1983), S.C., 393 *229 Mass. 132 (1984); Commonwealth v. Wallace, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 358, 363-364 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Buckleygreen1 sentence1992See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Crosscup, 369 Mass. 228 , 234-235 & n.5 (1975); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 369 Mass. 904, 916 (1976); Commonwealth v. Buckley, 354 Mass. 508, 511-512 (1968); Commonwealth v. Dellamano, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 156, 157 (1983), S.C., 393 *229 Mass. 132 (1984); Commonwealth v. Wallace, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 358, 363-364 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wallacegreen1 sentence1992See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Crosscup, 369 Mass. 228 , 234-235 & n.5 (1975); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 369 Mass. 904, 916 (1976); Commonwealth v. Buckley, 354 Mass. 508, 511-512 (1968); Commonwealth v. Dellamano, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 156, 157 (1983), S.C., 393 *229 Mass. 132 (1984); Commonwealth v. Wallace, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 358, 363-364 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jacksongreen1 sentence1992See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Crosscup, 369 Mass. 228 , 234-235 & n.5 (1975); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 369 Mass. 904, 916 (1976); Commonwealth v. Buckley, 354 Mass. 508, 511-512 (1968); Commonwealth v. Dellamano, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 156, 157 (1983), S.C., 393 *229 Mass. 132 (1984); Commonwealth v. Wallace, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 358, 363-364 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence1986See Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139, 142 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453, 459 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 387 U.S. 907 (1967); King v. State, 104 So.2d 730, 733 (Fla. 1958); State v. Horton, 275 N.C. 651, 657 (1969), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 959 (1970); Delaney v. State, 164 Tenn. 432, 435-436 (1932); Williams v. State, 646 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hortongreen1 sentence1986See Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139, 142 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453, 459 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 387 U.S. 907 (1967); King v. State, 104 So.2d 730, 733 (Fla. 1958); State v. Horton, 275 N.C. 651, 657 (1969), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 959 (1970); Delaney v. State, 164 Tenn. 432, 435-436 (1932); Williams v. State, 646 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Julian W. Sears v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1986See Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139, 142 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453, 459 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 387 U.S. 907 (1967); King v. State, 104 So.2d 730, 733 (Fla. 1958); State v. Horton, 275 N.C. 651, 657 (1969), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 959 (1970); Delaney v. State, 164 Tenn. 432, 435-436 (1932); Williams v. State, 646 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Joseph A. Chase, United States of America v. Robert H. Parrish, United States of America v. Wyatt J. Roy, Jr.green1 sentence1986See Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139, 142 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453, 459 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 387 U.S. 907 (1967); King v. State, 104 So.2d 730, 733 (Fla. 1958); State v. Horton, 275 N.C. 651, 657 (1969), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 959 (1970); Delaney v. State, 164 Tenn. 432, 435-436 (1932); Williams v. State, 646 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence1986See Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139, 142 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453, 459 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 387 U.S. 907 (1967); King v. State, 104 So.2d 730, 733 (Fla. 1958); State v. Horton, 275 N.C. 651, 657 (1969), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 959 (1970); Delaney v. State, 164 Tenn. 432, 435-436 (1932); Williams v. State, 646 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Delaney v. Stategreen1 sentence1986See Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139, 142 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453, 459 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 387 U.S. 907 (1967); King v. State, 104 So.2d 730, 733 (Fla. 1958); State v. Horton, 275 N.C. 651, 657 (1969), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 959 (1970); Delaney v. State, 164 Tenn. 432, 435-436 (1932); Williams v. State, 646 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Golstongreen1 sentence1983In Commonwealth v. Golston, 373 Mass. 249, 260 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1039 (1978), the court stated: “There is no requirement that the defendant know that his act was extremely atrocious or cruel, and no requirement of deliberate premeditation.” Finally, in Commonwealth v. Monsen, 377 Mass. 245 (1979), the court observed: “To import a mens rea requirement into the words ‘extreme atrocity or cruelty’ would be to blur the distinction between that form of murder in the first degree and the premeditated variety. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Applebygreen2 sentences1980A murder committed with malice aforethought may be found to have been committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty, even though the murderer did not know that his act was extremely atrocious or cruel.” In Commonwealth v. Appleby, 358 Mass. 407, 415 (1970), this court said: “It is not necessary ... to show that such atrocity or cruelty [with which the murder was committed] was premeditated or that the defendant knew his conduct constituted extreme atrocity or cruelty.” In the very recent case of Commonwealth v. Monsen, 377 Mass. 245, 254 (1979), we said: “To import a mens rea requirement into the 1980A murder committed with malice aforethought may be found to have been committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty, even though the murderer did not know that his act was extremely atrocious or cruel." In Commonwealth v. Appleby, 358 Mass. 407, 415 (1970), this court said: "It is not necessary ... to show that such atrocity or cruelty [with which the murder was committed] was premeditated or that the defendant knew his conduct constituted extreme atrocity or cruelty." In the very recent case of Commonwealth v. Monsen, 377 Mass. 245, 254 (1979), we said: "To import a mens rea requirement into the | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mixergreen1 sentence1966See Commonwealth v. Mixer, 207 Mass. 141, 142-143 , where numerous instances of strict criminal liability are collected. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burtenshaw v. Ferry
green
1 sentence2011Where a mens rea requirement of mere knowledge attaches to a material element of a statutorily-created crime unknown at common law, “[a] collective knowledge instruction is entirely appropriate in the context of corporate criminal liability.” United States v. Bank of New England, N.A., 821 F.2d 844, 856 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 943 (1987) (Bank of New England). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Commonwealth v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011In Commonwealth v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., 456 Mass. 826 (2010) (Life Care), the court acknowledged this principle. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Commonwealth v. Whitman
green
1 sentence2009That argument has been addressed and soundly rejected by the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Whitman, 430 Mass. 746 (2000). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Commonwealth v. Sama
green
1 sentence2006Although not made explicit in Commonwealth v. Sama, supra, the context of the decision suggests that with respect to crimes that have a “knowledge” component of the mens rea requirement, in addition to or in lieu of intent, the defendant’s intoxication is only relevant if the crime requires a specific knowledge. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Commonwealth v. Cunneen
green
1 sentence2001Those decisions merely added a defendant’s impaired mental capacity as “an additional factor which the jury should consider in determining whether the murder was committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty.” Commonwealth v. Cunneen, supra at 228 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Delaney v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence1998L. c. 209A, § 7, required at least minimal proof that he intended to do the act that resulted in the violation, and that the Commonwealth’s proof was insufficient to warrant such a finding. 4 In Commonwealth v. Delaney, 425 Mass. 587, 595-597 (1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 714 (1998), we considered the mens rea requirement necessary under G. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Bryant-Buckner Associates, Inc. v. Danville Tobacco Ass'n
green
1 sentence1986See Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139, 142 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453, 459 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 387 U.S. 907 (1967); King v. State, 104 So.2d 730, 733 (Fla. 1958); State v. Horton, 275 N.C. 651, 657 (1969), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 959 (1970); Delaney v. State, 164 Tenn. 432, 435-436 (1932); Williams v. State, 646 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Marcello v. United States
green
1 sentence1986See Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139, 142 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453, 459 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 387 U.S. 907 (1967); King v. State, 104 So.2d 730, 733 (Fla. 1958); State v. Horton, 275 N.C. 651, 657 (1969), cert, denied, 398 U.S. 959 (1970); Delaney v. State, 164 Tenn. 432, 435-436 (1932); Williams v. State, 646 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Golston v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence1983In Commonwealth v. Golston, 373 Mass. 249, 260 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1039 (1978), the court stated: “There is no requirement that the defendant know that his act was extremely atrocious or cruel, and no requirement of deliberate premeditation.” Finally, in Commonwealth v. Monsen, 377 Mass. 245 (1979), the court observed: “To import a mens rea requirement into the words ‘extreme atrocity or cruelty’ would be to blur the distinction between that form of murder in the first degree and the premeditated variety. . . . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.