Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 6/13/2003

Commonwealth v. Carroll

Citations

439 Mass. 547
789 N.E.2d 1062
2003 Mass. LEXIS 444

How courts have described this case

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

where excluded evidence was not relevant to any “live issue” at trial, .no abuse of discretion
where the excluded evidence was not relevant to any “live issue” at trial, no abuse of discretion
improper exploitation by prosecutor where closing remarks on coventurer’s motive “would not have been plausible” had excluded evidence been admitted
“Counsel may not, in closing, ‘exploit the absence of evidence that had been excluded at his request’ ”
prosecutor may not refer in closing to matter \that has been excluded from evidence\ and may not \invit[e] an inference from the jury about the same excluded subject matter\ [citations omitted]
“judge may exclude evidence that is ‘cumulative, repetitive, or confusing’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Spina

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.