Commonwealth v. Crocker

How courts have described this case

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

• repudiating cases that “looked beyond the required elements of the statutory offenses . . . to the actual evidence introduced at the defendant’s trial”
• repudiating cases that “looked beyond the required elements of the statutory offenses ... to the actual evidence introduced at the defendant’s trial”
• cashing three checks at three different bank branches over three days is circumstantial evidence of uttering
• “Determining whether such cases involve reprosecution for the ‘same offense’ may require consideration of the actual facts developed at trial in support of the charge tried first” [emphasis added]
• overruling in relevant part Commonwealth v. Cerveny, 373 Mass. 345 [1977]
• “[T]he prohibition against duplicitous convictions limits not the legislative power to declare substantive criminal law but rather the judicial interpretation of that law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).