defendant claimed error in Massachusetts

2016In both cases, the Appeals Court found no error, noting that a jury was unlikely to construe the instructions as imposing a duty to retreat because “coming to the aid of another involves intervention and necessarily is irreconcilable with retreat.” Sullivan, 17 Mass. App. Ct. at 982 .

2016In both cases, the Appeals Court found no error, noting that a jury was unlikely to construe the instructions as imposing a duty to retreat because "coming to the aid of another involves intervention and necessarily is irreconcilable with retreat." Sullivan, 17 Mass. App. Ct. at 982 .

2016Similarly, in Hakala , the defendant claimed error in the judge’s statements that there was a “duty to avoid physical contact” and that “a person must, before resorting to deadly force to defend himself or another, take advantage of all proper and reasonable means to avoid the use of deadly force.” Hakala, 22 Mass. App. Ct. at 922 .

2016Similarly, in Hakala, the defendant claimed error in the judge's statements that there was a "duty to avoid physical contact" and that "a person must, before resorting to deadly force to defend himself or another, take advantage of all proper and reasonable means to avoid the use of deadly force." Hakala, 22 Mass. App. Ct. at 922 .

2010In a separate argument in his appellate brief, the defendant claimed a violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) , asserting that Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279 (2005) , is contrary to Crawford , and that the three drug analysis certificates were erroneously admitted in evidence without first satisfying the requirements of Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15, 25-26 (1994) (outlining a judge’s “gatekeeper role” in assessing the scientific validity and reliability of expert opinion).

2010In a separate argument in his appellate brief, the defendant claimed a violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) , asserting that Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279 (2005) , is contrary to Crawford , and that the three drug analysis certificates were erroneously admitted in evidence without first satisfying the requirements of Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15, 25-26 (1994) (outlining a judge’s “gatekeeper role” in assessing the scientific validity and reliability of expert opinion).

1987The Appeals Court held that there was no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, Commonwealth v. Freeman, supra, where there was evidence on which a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the three incidents charged had in fact occurred.

1969The defendant argues that this resulted in his being subjected to “the imposition of . . . [a] sanction which makes assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege 'costly.'” Spevack v. Klein, 385 U. S. 511, 515 .

1958His exceptions were sufficient to “put before us the full context of the sentences referred to in the specific exceptions.” See Cahalane v. Poust, 333 Mass. 689, 690 .

1958Following the judge’s charge on the issue of contributory negligence and the imputing of any negligence of Horowitz to Mrs. Horowitz, the owner of the automobile, the defendant claimed an exception and requested amplification and clarification of a part of the charge 1 in various *745 respects, inviting the judge’s attention to Mendolia v. White, 313 Mass. 318 , and Menzigian v. LaRiviere, 334 Mass. 610 .

1958Following the judge’s charge on the issue of contributory negligence and the imputing of any negligence of Horowitz to Mrs. Horowitz, the owner of the automobile, the defendant claimed an exception and requested amplification and clarification of a part of the charge 1 in various *745 respects, inviting the judge’s attention to Mendolia v. White, 313 Mass. 318 , and Menzigian v. LaRiviere, 334 Mass. 610 .