Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32B (2026)

Class C controlled substances; unlawful manufacturer, distribution, dispensing or possession with intent to manufacture, etc

✓ current as of July 2026

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

[Text of section applicable as provided by 2018, 69, Sec. 238.]

Section 32B. (a) Any person who knowingly or intentionally manufactures, distributes, dispenses or possesses with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance in Class C of section 31 shall be imprisoned in state prison for not more than 5 years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than 21/2 years, or by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000, or both such fine and imprisonment.

(b) Any person convicted of violating this section after 1 or more prior convictions of manufacturing, distributing, dispensing or possessing with the intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense a controlled substance as defined by section 31 under this or any prior law of this jurisdiction or of any offense of any other jurisdiction, federal, state or territorial, which is the same as or necessarily includes the elements of said offense shall be punished by a term of imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years, a term of imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years and a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, a term of imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 21/2 years, a term of imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 21/2 years and a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, or a fine of not more than $10,000.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1984–2017 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Brown, 925 N.E.2d 845 (Mass. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Brown, 925 N.E.2d 845 (Mass. 2010). · cites it 3× “” In finding the defendant guilty, the judge stated simply that the defendant had violated G. L. c. 94C, § 32B (a), without reference to which of the two forms of conduct the defendant had engaged in, and the defendant made no claim as to the adequacy of the evidence to support…”

Commonwealth v. Kobrin, 893 N.E.2d 384 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 5× “118E, §§40 and 41, and the illegal prescribing of controlled substances under G. L. c. 94C, § 32B(«). Four years later and after a month-long trial by jury, the defendant was acquitted of all but three counts: one count of illegally prescribing a Class C controlled substance…”

Kobrin v. Bd. of Reg. in Med., 832 N.E.2d 628 (Mass. 2005). “The petitioner also was convicted of one count of violating G. L. c. 94C, § 32B, in connection with his prescribing Klonopin to a patient, but the board did not use that conviction as a basis for issuing its statement of allegations against the petitioner.”

Commonwealth v. Farnsworth, 920 N.E.2d 45 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). “After a jury-waived trial, the defendant was convicted of possession of a class C substance (psilocybin) in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32B(o), possession of a class D substance (marijuana) with intent to distribute in violation of G.”

Commonwealth v. Caterino, 583 N.E.2d 259 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). “G. L. c. 94C, § 32B. He was convicted of the lesser included offense of possession of a class C controlled substance.”

Commonwealth v. Alisha A., 777 N.E.2d 191 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). “A Juvenile Court jury returned verdicts of *312 delinquency on charges that the juvenile distributed a Class C controlled substance, G. L. c. 94C, § 32B, and did so within 1,000 feet of a school, G.”

Commonwealth v. Fernandes, 568 N.E.2d 604 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991). “571, § 3), unlawful possession of hashish with intent to distribute (G. L. c. 94C, § 32B[o]), unlawful possession of marijuana (G.”

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 542 N.E.2d 248 (Mass. 1989). “After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32B (1988 ed.). The defendant appealed, arguing that he is entitled to a new trial due to error in the judge’s instructions to the jury.”

Commonwealth v. Hurd, 471 N.E.2d 27 (Mass. 1984). “The defendant was charged with three violations of the Controlled Substances Act, G. L. c. 94C, §§ 32B, 32E, and 34. The defendant originally planned to proceed with a bench trial in the first instance.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 904 N.E.2d 452 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). “One indictment charged the defendant with a single count of violating G. L. c. 94C, § 32B(a). That statute, except for the punishment, is identical to § 32A(a).”

Commonwealth v. Barbot, 95 N.E.3d 300 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017). “94C, § 32E( c )(3), possession with intent to distribute clonazepam in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32B, a related school zone charge under G.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 995 N.E.2d 1091 (Mass. 2013). “The indictment charging him with violating G. L. c. 94C, § 32B (a), was the subject of a jury-waived trial, where the Commonwealth did not elect to proceed on the theory that Brown had dispensed controlled substances.”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32B(a) — 2 cases

Commonwealth v. Kobrin, 893 N.E.2d 384 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “118E, §§40 and 41, and the illegal prescribing of controlled substances under G. L. c. 94C, § 32B(«). Four years later and after a month-long trial by jury, the defendant was acquitted of all but three counts: one count of illegally prescribing a Class C controlled substance…”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 904 N.E.2d 452 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). “One indictment charged the defendant with a single count of violating G. L. c. 94C, § 32B(a). That statute, except for the punishment, is identical to § 32A(a).”

— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32B(o) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Farnsworth, 920 N.E.2d 45 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). “After a jury-waived trial, the defendant was convicted of possession of a class C substance (psilocybin) in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32B(o), possession of a class D substance (marijuana) with intent to distribute in violation of G.”

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.