Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2/28/1972

Commonwealth v. Hare

Citations

280 N.E.2d 138
361 Mass. 263
1972 Mass. LEXIS 881

How courts have described this case

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

“Nothing we hold today prevents the parties from testing the sufficiency of the evidence by stipulation or by some other proceeding, agreeable to the parties, which avoids a long and costly trial”
on Commonwealth’s appeal under G. L. c. 278, § 28E, trial judge improperly dismissed indictment by “considering the Commonwealth’s bill of particulars in derogation of its indictment”
argument that where clear by established facts and law that “defendant cannot be convicted, the Commonwealth and the defendant should not be put to the trouble and expense of a trial”
“[I]f the State succeeds in getting the defendant within its power, the law of this Commonwealth permits prosecution of the defendant for acts done outside its borders but intended to have effect within the Commonwealth” (emphasis added)
defendant may be convicted of being an accessory before the fact to a felony committed in Massachusetts even though all counseling or arranging occurred in Ohio where the fact that the felony was committed is an element of the crime charged

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tauro, Cutter, Spiegel, Reardon, Quirico, Braucher, Hennessey

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

42 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.