Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 2 (2026)

Enticing away person for prostitution or sexual intercourse

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 2. Whoever fraudulently and deceitfully entices or takes away a person from the house of his parent or guardian or elsewhere, for the purpose of prostitution or for the purpose of unlawful sexual intercourse, and whoever aids and assists in such abduction for such purpose, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment in jail.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1925–2024 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Gustavo Gonzalez Santos., 100 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Gustavo Gonzalez Santos., 100 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021). “272, § 11, apparently remains on the books, applying by its terms to charges under G. L. c. 272, §§ 2 (abduction of persons for purpose of prostitution or unlawful sexual intercourse), 4 (inducing person under age eighteen "of chaste life" to have unlawful sexual intercourse),…”

Commonwealth v. Smith, 728 N.E.2d 272 (Mass. 2000). · cites it 2× “Gallant, supra, the Legislature has amended G. L. c. 272, §§ 2, 6, 14, but has not expanded the scope of the proscribed offenses to include “unnatural sexual intercourse.”

Roe v. Attorney Gen., 434 Mass. 418 (Mass. 2001). “The Act adds several new offenses under the definition of “[s]ex offense,” including enticing someone “away" for prostitution, G. L. c. 272, § 2; incestuous marriage or intercourse, G.”

Skrabec v. Town of North Attleboro, 878 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2017). “Patrick was charged with the misdemeanor offenses of threatening to commit a crime, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 2 ; and disturbing a school assembly,' Mass.”

Commonwealth v. Bucaulis, 373 N.E.2d 221 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978). “272, § 11, to corroborate woman’s testimony of defendant’s conduct while in the house in prosecution for violation of G. L. c. 272, § 2). There was no error in the denial of the motions.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 112 N.E.3d 264 (Mass. 2018). “272, § 7, makes no mention of facilitation of prostitution (which would include, for example, soliciting for customers) because the Legislature chose to criminalize such conduct under separate sections of G.”

Commonwealth v. Matos, 941 N.E.2d 645 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). “7 See G. L. c. 272, § 2 (crime to “entice[] or take[] away a person from the house of his parent or guardian or elsewhere, for the purpose of prostitution or for the purpose of unlawful sexual intercourse”); G.”

Commonwealth v. Grant, 898 N.E.2d 883 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). “265, § 26, with intent to commit one of the above listed crimes; (10) enticing away a person for prostitution or sexual intercourse, G. L. c. 272, § 2; (11) drugging persons for sexual intercourse, G.”

Commonwealth v. Taschetta, 252 Mass. 158 (Mass. 1925). “” G. L. c. 272, § 2. The defendant was not entitled to a ruling to the effect that there must be corroboration of a witness who testifies on the issue of fraudulently and deceitfully enticing and taking away.”

Commonwealth v. Buono (Mass. 2020). “272, § 11 ("A person shall not be convicted [under G. L. c. 272, §§ 2, 4, and 6,] upon the evidence of one witness only, unless his testimony is corroborated in a material particular" [emphasis added]); G.”

Comm. for Pub. Couns. Servs. v. Chief Just. of the Trial Court (Mass. 2020). “265, § 52); enticing away a person for prostitution or sexual intercourse (G. L. c. 272, § 2); drugging persons for sexual intercourse (G.”

John Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 526599 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.. (Mass. App. Ct. 2024). “And, the petitioner urges, the statute that the hearing examiner did rely upon as a "like violation," G. L. c. 272, § 2, does not qualify as a like violation because the elements of c.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.