person granted immunity in Massachusetts

2024General Laws c. 233, § 20I, provides: "No defendant in any criminal proceeding shall be convicted solely on the testimony of, or the evidence produced by, a person granted immunity under the provisions of section twenty E." The Supreme Judicial Court has interpreted § 20I to "require that there be some evidence in support of the testimony of an immunized witness on at least one element of proof essential to convict the defendant." Commonwealth v. DeBrosky, 363 Mass. 718, 730 (1973).

1997He overheard some of the conversation from the room which included a discussion about what to do with certain guns and who to “blame it on.” One person suggested that the group should blame it on “some kids from Boston.” General Laws c. 233, § 201, provides: “No defendant in any criminal proceeding shall be convicted solely on the testimony of, or the evidence produced by, a person granted immunity under the provisions of [§ 20E].” The defendant urges us to reconsider our decision in DeBrosky, supra, and require some proof of the defendant’s actual participation in the crime to corroborate the

2016See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Dyous, 436 Mass. 719 , 727 n.11 (2002) (approving judge's instruction on credibility of immunized witness, which included statement that "defendant cannot be convicted solely on the testimony of a person granted immunity" and that there must be "some corroboration" "on at least one element of proof essential to convict the defendant").

2016See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Dyous, 436 Mass. 719 , 727 n.11 (2002) (approving judge’s instruction on credibility of immunized witness, which included statement that “defendant cannot be convicted solely on the testimony of a person granted immunity” and that there must be “some corroboration” “on at least one element of proof essential to convict the defendant”).

1977General Laws c. 233, § 201, inserted by St. 1970, c. 408, provides: “No defendant in any criminal proceeding shall be convicted solely on the testimony of, or the evidence produced by, a person granted immunity under the provisions of section twenty E.” In Commonwealth v. DeBrosky, 363 Mass. 718, 730 (1973), this court stated that the statute “require [s] that there be some evidence in support of the testimony of an immunized witness on at least one element of proof essential to convict the defendant.” *20 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 371 Mass. 803, 811-813 (1977); Commonwealth v. Donahue, 369

1977General Laws c. 233, § 201, inserted by St. 1970, c. 408, provides that “[n]o defendant in any criminal proceeding shall be convicted solely on the testimony of, or the evidence produced by, a person granted immunity under the provisions of section twenty E.” In Commonwealth v. Donahue, 369 Mass. 943, 949 (1976), and Commonwealth v. DeBrosky, 363 Mass. 718, 730 (1973), we construed this statute “to require that there be some evidence in support of the testimony of an immunized witness on at least one element of proof essential to convict the defendant.” In the DeBrosky case we further indicate

2017L. c. 233, § 201, “No defendant in any criminal proceeding shall be convicted solely on the testimony of, or the evidence produced by, a person granted immunity.” See Commonwealth v. Fernandes, 425 Mass. 357, 360 (1997), quoting Commonwealth v. Scanlon, 373 Mass. 11, 19 (1977) (“We have said that to provide the requisite credibility, ‘there must be some evidence in support of the testimony of an immunized witness on at least one element of proof essential to convict the defendant’ ”).

1983Examples of the application of these rules are Commonwealth v. Donahue, 369 Mass. 943, 949-950 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 833 (1976), Commonwealth v. Turner, 371 Mass. 803, 811-812 (1977), Commonwealth v. Scanlon, 373 Mass. 11, 19-20 (1977), and Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 618, 621-623 (1978). 2 The defendant does not argue that there was error for this reason on the two indictments pertaining to arson at 413 Massachusetts Avenue. 3 Since the defendant waived his previously filed motion for particulars, evidence of several different acts involving the defendant’s payment of money to

1983Examples of the application of these rules are Commonwealth v. Donahue, 369 Mass. 943, 949-950 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 833 (1976), Commonwealth v. Turner, 371 Mass. 803, 811-812 (1977), Commonwealth v. Scanlon, 373 Mass. 11, 19-20 (1977), and Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 618, 621-623 (1978). 2 The defendant does not argue that there was error for this reason on the two indictments pertaining to arson at 413 Massachusetts Avenue. 3 Since the defendant waived his previously filed motion for particulars, evidence of several different acts involving the defendant’s payment of money to

1977General Laws c. 233, § 201, inserted by St. 1970, c. 408, provides: “No defendant in any criminal proceeding shall be convicted solely on the testimony of, or the evidence produced by, a person granted immunity under the provisions of section twenty E.” In Commonwealth v. DeBrosky, 363 Mass. 718, 730 (1973), this court stated that the statute “require [s] that there be some evidence in support of the testimony of an immunized witness on at least one element of proof essential to convict the defendant.” *20 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 371 Mass. 803, 811-813 (1977); Commonwealth v. Donahue, 369

2022See Taplin v. Chatham, 390 Mass. 1, 5 (1983). [Note 15] 3.

2017L. c. 233, § 201, “No defendant in any criminal proceeding shall be convicted solely on the testimony of, or the evidence produced by, a person granted immunity.” See Commonwealth v. Fernandes, 425 Mass. 357, 360 (1997), quoting Commonwealth v. Scanlon, 373 Mass. 11, 19 (1977) (“We have said that to provide the requisite credibility, ‘there must be some evidence in support of the testimony of an immunized witness on at least one element of proof essential to convict the defendant’ ”).

1983Examples of the application of these rules are Commonwealth v. Donahue, 369 Mass. 943, 949-950 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 833 (1976), Commonwealth v. Turner, 371 Mass. 803, 811-812 (1977), Commonwealth v. Scanlon, 373 Mass. 11, 19-20 (1977), and Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 618, 621-623 (1978). 2 The defendant does not argue that there was error for this reason on the two indictments pertaining to arson at 413 Massachusetts Avenue. 3 Since the defendant waived his previously filed motion for particulars, evidence of several different acts involving the defendant’s payment of money to

1983Examples of the application of these rules are Commonwealth v. Donahue, 369 Mass. 943, 949-950 , cert. denied, 429 U.S. 833 (1976), Commonwealth v. Turner, 371 Mass. 803, 811-812 (1977), Commonwealth v. Scanlon, 373 Mass. 11, 19-20 (1977), and Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 618, 621-623 (1978). 2 The defendant does not argue that there was error for this reason on the two indictments pertaining to arson at 413 Massachusetts Avenue. 3 Since the defendant waived his previously filed motion for particulars, evidence of several different acts involving the defendant’s payment of money to