Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 6/16/1999

Bynum v. Commonwealth

Citations

429 Mass. 705
711 N.E.2d 138
1999 Mass. LEXIS 361

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

rejecting Commonwealth’s argument that “a party who has prevailed on a point in the Appeals Court and does not seek further review is bound by a statement of law in the Appeals Court opinion that is not essential to that court’s conclusion in his favor”
\The prior offense is not an element of the crime for which a defendant is charged but concerns the punishment to be imposed if he is convicted ...\
because G. L. c. 94C, § 32A (d), is a sentencing enhancement statute and does not state a separate crime, c. 278, § 11 A, applies
“The prior offense is not an element of the crime for which a defendant is charged but concerns the punishment to be imposed if he is convicted . . . and the prior offense is [subsequently] proved”
§ 32A [d] is sentence enhancement provision rather than separate crime
“[T]he repeat-offender provisions of the [GUI] statute do not identify a freestanding crime. Rather they concern ‘solely the sentence of a person convicted of a [current] violation . . . who has previously been convicted of at least one similar [GUI] offense’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wilkins

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.