Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 11 (2026)

Directed verdict; setting aside verdict, new trial or finding of guilty of included offense

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 11. If a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty is denied and the case is submitted to the jury and a verdict of guilty is returned, the judge may on a renewed motion for a directed verdict of not guilty pursuant to the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure set aside the verdict and order a new trial, or order the entry of a finding of guilty of any offense included in the offense charged in the indictment or complaint.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 89 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1930–2025 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Gaulden, 420 N.E.2d 905 (Mass. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Gaulden, 420 N.E.2d 905 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 12× “He purported to act under G.L.c. 278, § 11, as appearing in St. 1979, c.”

Commonwealth v. Maloney, 855 N.E.2d 765 (Mass. 2006). · cites it 7× “Following this conviction, the defendant was entitled to a separate proceeding, pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 11 A, to determine whether he had been convicted of the three prior GUI offenses alleged in the complaint.”

Commonwealth v. Kulesa, 917 N.E.2d 762 (Mass. 2009). · cites it 5× “1 As required by G. L. c. 278, § 11 A, 2 *he then was arraigned and tried on the subsequent offender portion of the criminal harassment indictment.”

Commonwealth v. Colon, 958 N.E.2d 56 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 3× “In April, 2007, the defendant was tried before a different jury, see G. L. c. 278, § 11 A, on the count of the indictment for carrying a firearm without a license (G.”

Commonwealth v. Gould, 405 N.E.2d 927 (Mass. 1980). · cites it 2× “See G.L.c. 278, § 11. As grounds for this motion, the defendant maintained that he was not capable of forming the requisite intent for murder in the first degree and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.”

Commonwealth v. Miranda, 809 N.E.2d 487 (Mass. 2004). · cites it 2× “As a preliminary matter, we note that under G. L. c. 278, § 11 A, 6 the defendant was required to be tried in the manner *788 that he was — first, on the underlying substantive crime and, then, in a separate proceeding, on that component of the charge referring to the crime as a…”

Commonwealth v. Eberhart, 965 N.E.2d 791 (Mass. 2012). · cites it 2× “G. L. c. 278, § 11 A. At this subsequent offender trial, the “trial judge may admit any evidence that would have been admissible at the original trial of the alleged predicate offense.”

Commonwealth v. Jarvis, 863 N.E.2d 567 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 6× “5 We conclude that, while the procedure followed in this case violated the provisions of G. L. c. 278, § 11 A, the defendant neither was put in jeopardy twice for the same offense nor subjected to a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.”

Commonwealth v. Woodward, 694 N.E.2d 1277 (Mass. 1998). · cites it 2× “In 1962, the Legislature further authorized us to consider a defendant’s degree of guilt and order a reduction in the verdict in appropriate capital cases, in lieu of a new trial. St. 1962, c. 453. In 1979, the Legislature granted trial judges the power to enter a finding of…”

Commonwealth v. McInerney, 365 N.E.2d 815 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 2× “" G.L.c. 278, § 11, as amended by St. 1964, c.”

Commonwealth v. Lowder, 731 N.E.2d 510 (Mass. 2000). · cites it 4× “” Rule 25 is derived “with a minimum of change” from the version of G. L. c. 278, § 11, that was in effect prior to the promulgation in 1979 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.”

Commonwealth v. Thompson, 696 N.E.2d 105 (Mass. 1998). · cites it 3× “The defendant also challenges the habitual criminal conviction on the grounds that the judge abused her discretion under G. L. c. 278, § 11 A, in refusing to empanel a new jury to try the habitual criminal indictment, and that his ensuing jury waiver was ineffective under G.”

Show all 89 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.