Section 25. (a) Whoever commits larceny by stealing from the person of a person sixty-five years or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail for not more than two and one-half years.
Whoever, after having been convicted of said crime commits a second or subsequent such crime, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years. Said sentence shall not be reduced until one year of said sentence has been served nor shall the person convicted be eligible for probation, parole, furlough, work release or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served one year of such sentence; provided, however, that the commissioner of correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of a correctional institution, or the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to said offender a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of next of kin or spouse; to visit a critically ill close relative or spouse; or to obtain emergency medical services unavailable at said institution. The provisions of section eighty-seven of chapter two hundred and seventy-six relating to the power of the court to place certain offenders on probation shall not apply to any person seventeen years of age or over charged with a violation of this subsection.
(b) Whoever commits larceny by stealing from the person of another shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail for not more than two and one-half years.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: United States v. Hudson, 823 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2016).
United States v. Hudson, 823 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2016). “One of the three predicate convictions on which the district court relied was a 1997 conviction for larceny from a person, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, § 25 . But that offense had qualified as a predicate under the residual clause of the ACCA, a provision subsequently…”
Lunn v. Commonwealth, 78 N.E.3d 1143 (Mass. 2017). “265, § 19 [i ]) to larceny from a person (G. L. c. 266, § 25 [ft]) . Third, on January 20, 2017, a judge in the Superior Court, acting on a request for bail review, G.”
Commonwealth v. Moran, 422 N.E.2d 399 (Mass. 1982). “Based on these contentions, Moran argues that he would not be guilty of either robbery or felony-murder predicated on robbery.”
Commonwealth v. Lashway, 634 N.E.2d 930 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2דWe may note, by way of contrast, that the crime of larceny from the person, G. L. c. 266, § 25(6) (set out at note 6, supra), might have been charged as a lesser offense: that statute would apply if the jury found against the Commonwealth on the question of “causation” — whether…”
United States v. Rodriguez, 659 F.3d 117 (1st Cir. 2011). “It is a different question whether Massachusetts’ crime of larceny from the person, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, § 25 (b) (2008), is a “violent felony” that qualifies as an ACCA predicate, 18 U.”
Commonwealth v. Dean-Ganek, 960 N.E.2d 262 (Mass. 2012). · cites it 2דLarceny from a person, which is defined by G. L. c. 266, § 25 (b), is a lesser included offense of armed robbery.”
Commonwealth v. Harvey, 491 N.E.2d 607 (Mass. 1986). “On April 5, 1984, a Middlesex County grand jury returned two indictments charging the defendant, Robert Harvey, with larceny from the person, see G. L. c. 266, § 25 (b) (1984 ed.), and civil rights violations under G.”
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 666 N.E.2d 475 (Mass. 1996). “G. L. c. 266, § 25 (b) (1994 ed.). They had been sentenced to six-month and one-year probations, respectively, on which they defaulted.”
Commonwealth v. Davis, 385 N.E.2d 278 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). “The defendant concedes that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict of the lesser included offense of larceny from the person (see G. L. c. 266, § 25) but argues that there was insufficient *11 evidence to support a conviction of robbery.”
Commonwealth v. Jason Rodriguez., 100 Mass. App. Ct. 663 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 3דAt the trial of indictments charging the defendant with, inter alia, larceny from the person, G. L. c. 266, § 25 (b), the evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant stole property of the victim that was within the victim's control, where the specific property (cell…”
United States v. Sanford, 327 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D. Me. 2004). · cites it 2דFinally, the Court evaluates the Defendant’s 1998 conviction for larceny from a person under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 266, § 25. 9 Gov’t Ex. 4.”
Commonwealth v. Drewnowski, 694 N.E.2d 1301 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). “1 On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial judge erred twice (1) in not instructing the jury on the lesser included offenses of larceny from the person of another, G. L. c. 266, § 25(6), and assault with intent to rob, G.”
Commonwealth v. Lashway, 634 N.E.2d 930 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994). “We may note, by way of contrast, that the crime of larceny from the person, G. L. c. 266, § 25(6) (set out at note 6, supra), might have been charged as a lesser offense: that statute would apply if the jury found against the Commonwealth on the question of “causation” — whether…”
Commonwealth v. Drewnowski, 694 N.E.2d 1301 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). “1 On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial judge erred twice (1) in not instructing the jury on the lesser included offenses of larceny from the person of another, G. L. c. 266, § 25(6), and assault with intent to rob, G.”
United States v. Sanford, 327 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D. Me. 2004). “Finally, the Court evaluates the Defendant’s 1998 conviction for larceny from a person under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 266, § 25. 9 Gov’t Ex. 4.”
Commonwealth v. Lashway, 634 N.E.2d 930 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994). “We may note, by way of contrast, that the crime of larceny from the person, G. L. c. 266, § 25(6) (set out at note 6, supra), might have been charged as a lesser offense: that statute would apply if the jury found against the Commonwealth on the question of “causation” — whether…”
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.