6 Massachusetts opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Martingreen2 sentences2012“The actor’s justification is lost if he uses excessive force, e.g., aggressive or deadly force unwarranted for the protective purpose.” Commonwealth v. Martin, supra. There was no error in the judge’s conclusion that the defendant was not entitled to an instruction on the use of force in defense of another. 2003Because there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that neither the defendant nor her husband were justified in using deadly force, we decline the defendant’s invitation to reconsider the test for the justification of the use of force in defense of another as set out in Commonwealth v. Martin, supra. We affirm the defendant’s conviction. | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Haddockgreen1 sentence2024The use of force in defense of property is justified when "(1) the defendant used only nondeadly force, and (2) the force used was 'appropriate in kind and suitable in degree, to accomplish the purpose.'" Commonwealth v. Haddock, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 246, 248-249 (1999), quoting Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 57 Mass. 154, 158 (1849). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Goodwingreen1 sentence2024The use of force in defense of property is justified when "(1) the defendant used only nondeadly force, and (2) the force used was 'appropriate in kind and suitable in degree, to accomplish the purpose.'" Commonwealth v. Haddock, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 246, 248-249 (1999), quoting Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 57 Mass. 154, 158 (1849). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Vargasgreen1 sentence2024"The decision to allow a motion for a new trial lies within the sound discretion of the judge and will not be reversed 3 unless it is manifestly unjust or unless the trial was infected with prejudicial constitutional error." Commonwealth v. Vargas, 475 Mass. 338, 354 (2016), quoting Commonwealth v. Gorham, 472 Mass. 112, 117 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Gorhamgreen1 sentence2024"The decision to allow a motion for a new trial lies within the sound discretion of the judge and will not be reversed 3 unless it is manifestly unjust or unless the trial was infected with prejudicial constitutional error." Commonwealth v. Vargas, 475 Mass. 338, 354 (2016), quoting Commonwealth v. Gorham, 472 Mass. 112, 117 (2015). | 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. Scott
green
1 sentence2016Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, Scott, 463 Mass. at 577 , the evidence does not support an objective basis on which a reasonable person would have believed that the defendant was justified in using deadly force in defense of Rodriguez. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Yazbeck
green
1 sentence1994“The proper inquiry in such circumstances is whether the defendant reasonably believed his menacing actions were necessary in the interests of protecting life or against serious bodily harm.” Ibid. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Commonwealth v. Burbank
green
1 sentence1992If the jury [conclude] that [the defendant] had the right to use force to defend himself but that the force used was excessive . . . they would [be] warranted in finding [the defendant] guilty only of manslaughter.” Commonwealth v. Burbank, supra. The rule is no different where the defendant’s justification for the use of force is defense of another. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.