first sentence rule (Massachusetts) · Go Syfert
← Massachusetts issues

first sentence rule in Massachusetts

6 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2024 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Commonwealth v. Amiraultgreen
mass · 1997 · cited in 1 Massachusetts opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Amirault, 424 Mass. 618, 637 (1997) (community's interest in finality of criminal judgments "comes to the fore" once appellate process has "run its course").

11
Marshall v. Stratus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green
massappct · 2001 · cited in 1 Massachusetts opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010See Marshall v. Stratus Pharms., Inc., 51 Mass. App. Ct. 667, 674 (2001); Buffum v. Rockport, 36 Mass. App. Ct. at 382 ; Multi Tech., Inc. v. Mitchell Mgt.

11
Commonwealth v. Barrowsgreen
mass · 1984 · cited in 1 Massachusetts opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007When Ptomey was decided in 1988, Rule 6 of the Superior Court (1974) allowed “an exception only in a trial of an indictment for a capital crime or in [a] case in which a judge ‘specially otherwise ordered.’ ” Com monwealth v. Barry, 397 Mass. 718, 724 (1986), quoting from Commonwealth v. Barrows, 391 Mass. 781, 784 (1984). 5 Thus in Commonwealth v. Ptomey, 26 Mass. App. Ct. at 494 , at a time when the rule provided no exception for cases where an individual voir dire was conducted, the failure of the trial judge to follow the general mie was held to be reversible error. 6 Writing for the court

11
Commonwealth v. Barrygreen
mass · 1986 · cited in 1 Massachusetts opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007When Ptomey was decided in 1988, Rule 6 of the Superior Court (1974) allowed “an exception only in a trial of an indictment for a capital crime or in [a] case in which a judge ‘specially otherwise ordered.’ ” Com monwealth v. Barry, 397 Mass. 718, 724 (1986), quoting from Commonwealth v. Barrows, 391 Mass. 781, 784 (1984). 5 Thus in Commonwealth v. Ptomey, 26 Mass. App. Ct. at 494 , at a time when the rule provided no exception for cases where an individual voir dire was conducted, the failure of the trial judge to follow the general mie was held to be reversible error. 6 Writing for the court

11
Commonwealth v. Therriengreen
mass · 1981 · cited in 1 Massachusetts opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
1 sentence

1987Our decision does not turn on the judge's misunderstanding of the defendant's motion. [6] In Commonwealth v. Therrien, 383 Mass. 529, 536-539 (1981), the court held that a judge erred in allowing a defendant's motion for a finding of not guilty of rape after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Commonwealth v. Niemic green
mass · 1998
1 sentence

2017Thus, constructive possession means knowledge of the location of an object combined with the ability and intention to exercise dominion and control over it." The defendant takes issue with the use of the word "power" instead of "ability" in the first sentence of the instruction. "[W]hen reviewing a judge's instructions to a jury, we do not consider phrases in isolation, but rather '[w]e evaluate the instruction as a whole, looking for the interpretation a reasonable juror would place on the judge's words.' " Commonwealth v. Glacken , 451 Mass. 163 , 168-169 (2008), quoting from Commonwealth v.

12017–2017
Commonwealth v. Glacken green
mass · 2008
1 sentence

2017Thus, constructive possession means knowledge of the location of an object combined with the ability and intention to exercise dominion and control over it." The defendant takes issue with the use of the word "power" instead of "ability" in the first sentence of the instruction. "[W]hen reviewing a judge's instructions to a jury, we do not consider phrases in isolation, but rather '[w]e evaluate the instruction as a whole, looking for the interpretation a reasonable juror would place on the judge's words.' " Commonwealth v. Glacken , 451 Mass. 163 , 168-169 (2008), quoting from Commonwealth v.

12017–2017
Buffum v. Town of Rockport green
massappct · 1994
1 sentence

2010See Marshall v. Stratus Pharms., Inc., 51 Mass. App. Ct. 667, 674 (2001); Buffum v. Rockport, 36 Mass. App. Ct. at 382 ; Multi Tech., Inc. v. Mitchell Mgt.

12010–2010
Commonwealth v. Ptomey green
massappct · 1988
2 sentences

2007When Ptomey was decided in 1988, Rule 6 of the Superior Court (1974) allowed “an exception only in a trial of an indictment for a capital crime or in [a] case in which a judge ‘specially otherwise ordered.’ ” Com monwealth v. Barry, 397 Mass. 718, 724 (1986), quoting from Commonwealth v. Barrows, 391 Mass. 781, 784 (1984). 5 Thus in Commonwealth v. Ptomey, 26 Mass. App. Ct. at 494 , at a time when the rule provided no exception for cases where an individual voir dire was conducted, the failure of the trial judge to follow the general mie was held to be reversible error. 6 Writing for the court

2007When Ptomey was decided in 1988, Rule 6 of the Superior Court (1974) allowed “an exception only in a trial of an indictment for a capital crime or in [a] case in which a judge ‘specially otherwise ordered.’ ” Com monwealth v. Barry, 397 Mass. 718, 724 (1986), quoting from Commonwealth v. Barrows, 391 Mass. 781, 784 (1984). 5 Thus in Commonwealth v. Ptomey, 26 Mass. App. Ct. at 494 , at a time when the rule provided no exception for cases where an individual voir dire was conducted, the failure of the trial judge to follow the general mie was held to be reversible error. 6 Writing for the court

12007–2007
Barker v. Wingo green
scotus · 1972
1 sentence

1975The commentary says (id. at 52) that the first sentence of the standard “sets forth what is universally the law in any event, i.e., that the power of control over the offender ceases upon the expiration of the period of probation.” As our text indicates, this statement requires considerable qualification to save it from error. 5 It may be advisable, nevertheless, to deal with some, at least, of the procedures for revocation of probation by rules within the province of the studies of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure of our Judicial Conference. 6 Whether the constitutional r

11975–1975

Where else courts name it

CA 40 (1917–2025) IL 23 (1902–2026) IN 10 (1924–2019) TX 10 (1963–2010) WA 9 (1970–2016) MS 8 (1954–2013) FL 8 (1936–2025) MI 7 (1967–2017) MA 6 (1975–2024) KS 6 (1926–2008) NY 6 (1911–2025) IA 5 (1885–2022) MO 5 (1953–1987) OR 5 (1933–2020) MN 5 (1977–2014) NE 5 (1917–2006) VA 4 (1907–2025) GA 4 (1981–2025) WI 4 (1912–2008) PA 3 (1997–2021) OH 3 (2007–2017) MT 3 (1998–2014) WV 3 (1892–2012) NH 2 (1967–1994) ND 2 (1968–2015) AL 2 (1982–1994) AZ 2 (1983–1985) NC 2 (1958–2001) ID 2 (1929–1998) DE 2 (2020–2021) NM 2 (1979–1996)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check