Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 263, § 8 (2026)

Acquittal on defective pleadings; subsequent indictment

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 8. If a person has been acquitted by reason of a variance between the indictment or complaint and the proof, or by reason of a defect of form or substance in the indictment or complaint, he may be again arraigned, tried and convicted for the same crime on a new indictment or complaint, notwithstanding such former acquittal.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1926–2012 · leading case: Marshall v. Commonwealth, 977 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marshall v. Commonwealth, 977 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 2012). · cites it 2× “263, § 8 (noting that, although judgments were reversed, verdicts were set aside, and indictments were dismissed due to fatal variance, such disposition did “not bar conviction for the same crimes on new indictments”). We are of the view that the present case falls within the…”

Commonwealth v. Ohanian, 370 N.E.2d 695 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 2× “G. L. c. 263, § 8. We therefore decide the question, fully argued, whether the evidence would warrant conviction under proper indictments.”

Commonwealth v. Campopiano, 254 Mass. 560 (Mass. 1926). “G. L. c. 263, § 8. The record of the court that the acquittal was by reason of a variance cannot be contradicted.”

Commonwealth v. Aldrich, 486 N.E.2d 732 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985). “See also G. L. c. 263, §§ 8 and 8A. The defendant makes no claim that there was any impropriety in the conduct of the jury trial or that the evidence was insufficient to justify the convictions.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.