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).
Powell v. Tompkins, 783 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2015). “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 7 ; Commonwealth v.”
Commonwealth v. Jones, 361 N.E.2d 1308 (Mass. 1977). “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). “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). “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). “*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). “12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.”
Powell v. Tompkins, 926 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Mass. 2013). “” 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). “" The cases citing G. L. c. 278, § 7, give us some guidance.”
Commonwealth v. Loadholt, 954 N.E.2d 1128 (Mass. 2011). “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). “See **773 G. L. c. 278, § 7. 7 This system comports with due process, Commonwealth v.”
Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 965 N.E.2d 800 (Mass. 2012). “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). “" [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 .”
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.