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.
6 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1949–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Snowgreen2 sentences2006Such amendments are not authorized with respect to matters “essential to the description of the crime charged,” Commonwealth v. Snow, supra at 606 . 2002See Commonwealth v. Snow, supra at 609 (amendment to indictment for intent to extort money to change name of person threatened was change of substance that would not bar subsequent prosecution). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Barbosagreen1 sentence2023The defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment in violation of art. 12 was denied.11 Barbosa, supra at 549, 553 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Robinsongreen1 sentence1980L. c. 119, § 83. 5 Ordinarily a motion to dismiss an indictment does not test the adequacy of the evidence of guilt received by the grand jury (see Commonwealth v. Robinson, 373 Mass. 591, 592 [1977]), but of course the question of guilt is tried to the petit jury. | 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. DiStasio
green
1 sentence2000In Commonwealth v. DiStasio, supra at 278 , we held the Commonwealth’s amendment of an indictment was not error where the “amendment did not change the substance of the crime charged” and still “required the defendant to answer for the murder of a particular man and no other.” Given the unamended indictments in the case before us and the notice provided to the defendant, DiStasio is inapposite. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Commonwealth v. Fitchburg Railroad
green
1 sentence1949The difference between the two counts is simply that in the first count the gift or gratuity alleged to have been requested by the defendant is described as “five thousand dollars,” while in the second count it is described as “a certain sum of money.” The defendant relies on Commonwealth v. Fitchburg Railroad, 120 Mass. 372 , in which the taking of a verdict of guilty upon each of three counts for a single offence was held error, where the three counts were “inconsistent with each other,” so that all could not have been proved. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.