Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 35 (2026)

Adjournments of examinations and trials

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 35. The court or justice may adjourn an examination or trial from time to time, and to the same or a different place in the county. In the meantime, if the defendant is charged with a crime that is not bailable, he shall be committed; otherwise, he may recognize in a sum and with surety or sureties to the satisfaction of the court or justice, or without surety, for his appearance for such examination or trial, or for want of such recognizance he shall be committed. While the defendant remains committed, no adjournment shall exceed thirty days at any one time against the objection of the defendant.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Fields, 356 N.E.2d 1211 (Mass. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Fields, 356 N.E.2d 1211 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 6× “In Ludwig , a District Court judge dismissed complaints on a motion to dismiss based, inter alia, on a claim of denial of a speedy trial where a continuance had been granted over the defendant’s objection in violation of G. L. c. 276, § 35. 9 A subsequent indictment based on the…”

Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 345 N.E.2d 386 (Mass. 1976). · cites it 3× “On November 28,1973, the defendant appeared in the District Court ready for trial but the judge instead continued the case over the defendant’s objections to February 6, 1974, despite G. L. c. 276, § 35, which prohibits the granting of delays in excess of “ten days at any one…”

Commonwealth v. Silva, 413 N.E.2d 349 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). · cites it 4× “Apart from the constitutional constraints, G. L. c. 276, § 35, imposes a statutory prohibition against the granting of *789 delays in the District Court in excess of “ten days at any one time against the objection of the defendant.”

Commonwealth v. Perkins, 981 N.E.2d 630 (Mass. 2013). · cites it 2× “1501 (2012) (see note 4, supra), directing a District Court judge to schedule a probable cause hearing at the time of arraignment on any complaint that is beyond the jurisdiction of that court; and (2) G. L. c. 276, § 35, which prohibits at any one time the continuance beyond…”

Commonwealth v. Balliro, 433 N.E.2d 434 (Mass. 1982). · cites it 2× “He concluded, on this assumption, that the nolle prosequi denied the defendant the protection of G. L. c. 276, § 35, which in general forbids a continuance for trial for a period exceeding ten days, over a defendant’s objection.”

Mendonza v. Commonwealth, 673 N.E.2d 22 (Mass. 1996). “G. L. c. 276, § 35, as amended by St. 1996, c.”

Commonwealth v. DeBella, 816 N.E.2d 102 (Mass. 2004). “1 (1976) (exceeding statutory time limit for adjournment of trial in G. L. c. 276, § 35, does not lead to automatic dismissal); Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Pomerleau, 434 N.E.2d 1288 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982). · cites it 3× “The record is silent as to who sought the continuances, but the defendant makes no claim that the continuances were made over his objection or that there was any violation of G. L. c. 276, § 35 (continuance over the objection of the defendant not to exceed ten days).”

Commonwealth v. Spann, 418 N.E.2d 328 (Mass. 1981). “” G. L. c. 276, § 35. He argues that his agreement to a continuance for more than the ten-day statutory period (from May 14 to June 8) was conditioned on the prosecutor’s promise not to indict the defendant in the interim.”

Commonwealth v. Conant, 423 N.E.2d 1035 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). · cites it 2× “Over the defendant’s objection and contrary to the directive of G. L. c. 276, § 35, providing that the trial judge may adjourn an examination or trial “not exceeding ten days at any one time against the objection of the defendant,” the judge granted a continuance until March 13,…”

Commonwealth v. McGillivary, 940 N.E.2d 506 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). “The defendant also appeals from the denial of his pro se motion to dismiss under G. L. c. 276, § 35. Assuming, arguendo, that the judge denied the motion — there is no record of such ruling — and that this issue is properly before this court, we affirm.”

Commonwealth v. Corbett, 533 N.E.2d 207 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989). “Continuance of a criminal case by a District Court judge for a period of more than ten days over a defendant’s objection, however, raises a question of a possible violation of G. L. c. 276, § 35. 4 If a defendant does not agree to have his case continued for more than ten days,…”

Show all 23 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.