Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 7 (2026)

Burden to prove license or admission to practice as attorney at law

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 7. A defendant in a criminal prosecution, relying for his justification upon a license, appointment, admission to practice as an attorney at law, or authority, shall prove the same; and, until so proved, the presumption shall be that he is not so authorized.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 47 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1925–2025 · leading case: Powell v. Tompkins, 783 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Powell v. Tompkins, 783 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2015). · cites it 8× “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 7 ; Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Jones, 361 N.E.2d 1308 (Mass. 1977). · cites it 7× “We hold that G. L. c. 278, § 7, 1 establishing a presumption that the defendant, until he proves a license, is not so authorized, is constitutional.”

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 958 N.E.2d 25 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 3× “See G. L. c. 278, § 7. 16 We conclude that this issue is not properly before the court.”

Commonwealth v. Humphries, 991 N.E.2d 652 (Mass. 2013). · cites it 4× “We have not previously considered whether a defendant’s burden of producing evidence of a license, as provided by G. L. c. 278, § 7, applies where a defendant must rely on the existence of a license held by a coventurer to establish his own defense.”

Commonwealth v. Munoz, 426 N.E.2d 1161 (Mass. 1981). · cites it 8× “*506 The Commonwealth contends that the judge’s instructions represent a correct application of the law because G. L. c. 278, § 7, which places the burden on the defendant to produce evidence of license or authority, applies to a prosecution under G.”

Commonwealth v. Powell, 946 N.E.2d 114 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 2× “12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.”

Powell v. Tompkins, 926 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Mass. 2013). · cites it 3× “” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 7 . Overlaid on Massachusetts General Laws chapter 269, section 10(h) and (a), Massachusetts General Laws chapter 278, section 7 insists that a person possessing or carrying a firearm in the Commonwealth be considered to be unlicensed to engage in…”

Commonwealth v. Grafton, 107 N.E.3d 1241 (Mass. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 8× “" The cases citing G. L. c. 278, § 7, give us some guidance.”

Commonwealth v. Loadholt, 954 N.E.2d 1128 (Mass. 2011). · cites it 2× “7 We do not address the defendant’s claims that center around *727 his contention that, in light of the McDonald and Heller, G. L. c. 278, § 7, 8 creates an unconstitutional presumption, the application of which in his case violated his Federal due process rights.”

Commonwealth v. Harris, 119 N.E.3d 1158 (Mass. 2019). · cites it 2× “See **773 G. L. c. 278, § 7. 7 This system comports with due process, Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 461 Mass. 821 (Mass. 2012). · cites it 2× “Burton-Brown additionally challenges on due process grounds G. L. c. 278, § 7, which requires a defendant in a firearms case whose defense is that he had a license to carry or a firearm identification card to “prove the same.”

Commonwealth v. Couture, 552 N.E.2d 538 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 2× “" [3] Previously in the Jones opinion, supra at 405, we discussed the history and purpose of G.L.c. 278, § 7 (1988 ed.), which provides in part: "A defendant in a criminal prosecution, relying for his justification upon a license .”

Show all 47 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.