Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 74 (2026)

Judgment for whole or part of penalty

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 74. If the penalty of a recognizance of a party or witness in a criminal prosecution is adjudged forfeited, the court may render judgment, upon such terms as it may order, against the principal or surety, or both, for the whole of the penalty with interest, or, in its discretion, for a part thereof, upon the filing in the case of a certificate of the district attorney or prosecuting officer stating that the interests of justice would be furthered thereby and setting forth specifically the reasons therefor; and no person shall, on behalf of the commonwealth, accept in satisfaction of any such judgment or any new judgment entered on review under section seventy-six any sum less than the full amount thereof.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1975–2011 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Bautista, 945 N.E.2d 341 (Mass. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Bautista, 945 N.E.2d 341 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 3× “See G. L. c. 276, § 74. 10 Consistent with the bail statutes, the common law, too, evolved with a recognition of the contractual underpinnings of bail and of the appropriateness of recognizing limited exceptions to the general rule of bail forfeiture whenever a defendant fails…”

Commonwealth v. The Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 321 N.E.2d 811 (Mass. 1975). “Default does not necessarily compel the surety or the principal to pay the Commonwealth the full face amount of the bonds, however.”

Commonwealth v. Gomez, 940 N.E.2d 488 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). “276, § 69], or render judgment for part of the face amount of the bonds [G. L. c. 276, § 74]”). Moreover, G. L. c.”

Haggerty v. Iannacci, 10 Mass. L. Rptr. 271 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1999). · cites it 3× “that G.L.c. 276, §74 requires the Commonwealth to show cause why, in the interests of justice, Mr.”

Commonwealth v. North, 5 Mass. L. Rptr. 597 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “G.L.c. 276, §74. Conclusion Based on the above chronology of events, and applicable law, I rule that the order entered on June 25, 1996, for the forfeiture of the $20,000.”

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.