Mass. Gen. Laws » Part IV Title II Chapter 277
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 277, § 37 (2026)

Negativing excuses, exceptions or provisos

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 37. An excuse, exception or proviso not stated in the enacting clause of a statute creating a crime or stated only by reference to other provisions of the statute need not be negatived in the indictment unless necessary for a complete definition of the crime. If any statute shall prescribe a form of indictment in which an excuse, exception or proviso is not negatived, it shall be taken that it is not necessary to a complete definition of the crime that they should be negatived. If a statute creating a crime permits an act, therein declared to be criminal, to be performed without criminality under stated conditions, such conditions need not be negatived.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1926–1986 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Smith, 489 N.E.2d 203 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Smith, 489 N.E.2d 203 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). “265, § 17 (armed robbery), § 19 (unarmed robbery); G. L. c. 277, § 37 (construction of robbery as used in indictment).”
Commonwealth v. Sokorelis, 150 N.E. 197 (Mass. 1926). “G. L. c. 277, § 37, provides in part as follows: “If any statute shall prescribe a form of indictment in which an excuse, exception or proviso is not negatived, it shall be taken that it is not necessary to a complete definition of the crime that they should be negatived.”
Couture v. Commonwealth, 153 N.E.2d 625 (Mass. 1958). “We need not decide whether there might be situations where the Commonwealth had participated in the illegal seizure and removal of a defendant to such an extent that it could not in fairness avail itself of the exception tolling the statute, for the record here does not reveal…”
Commonwealth v. Munoz, 413 N.E.2d 773 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). “The defendant’s contentions on this point are answered by the provisions of G. L. c. 277, § 37, and by the fact that the amendment resulted from a reduction in the charge.”
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.