Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 12/5/1991
Commonwealth v. Henderson
Citations
- 582 N.E.2d 496
- 411 Mass. 309
- 1991 Mass. LEXIS 570
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that Massachusetts' due process rule is stricter than the federal rule and requires balancing of the government's culpability, materiality of the evidence, and potential prejudice to the defendant
- holding that Massachusetts' due process rule is stricter than the federal rule and requires balancing of the government's culpability, materiality of the evidence, and potential prejudice to the defendant
- rejecting Youngblood and applying the standard under the Massachusetts state constitution because \[t]he fact that police did not act in had faith when they negligently lost the potentially exculpatory evidence cannot in fairness be dispositive\
- “The rule under the due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution is stricter than that stated in the Youngblood opinion.”
- “[t]he rule under the due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution is stricter than that stated in the Youngblood opinion”
- \The rule under the due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution is stricter than that stated in the Youngblood opinion.\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Liacos, Wilkins, Lynch, O'Connor, Greaney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
43 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Illinois v. FisherSupreme Court· 2004-02-23· cited 372×
- State v. FergusonTennessee Supreme Court· 1999-09-20· cited 296×
- Commonwealth v. TucceriMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1992-04-09· cited 145×
- State v. MoralesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-04-25· cited 129×
- Commonwealth v. WoodwardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1998-06-16· cited 111×
- Saldana v. StateWyoming Supreme Court· 1993-01-28· cited 104×
- Pena v. StateTex. App. Ct., 10th Dist. (Waco)· 2007-05-02· cited 95×
- State v. TiedemannUtah Supreme Court· 2007-06-29· cited 93×
- Commonwealth v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1995-06-09· cited 88×
- Commonwealth v. KaterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2000-08-30· cited 84×
- State v. OsakalumiWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1995-07-19· cited 75×
- State v. SteffesNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1993-05-26· cited 72×
- State v. YoungbloodArizona Supreme Court· 1993-01-07· cited 70×
- Commonwealth v. LydonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1992-07-29· cited 70×
- State v. EngesserSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 2003-04-23· cited 59×
- Cost v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2010-12-17· cited 42×
- Gurley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1993-10-22· cited 39×
- State v. BocharskiArizona Supreme Court· 2001-05-03· cited 39×
- Grimsley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1996-01-19· cited 36×
- People v. DaniellyAppellate Court of Illinois· 1995-07-14· cited 33×
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Arizona v. YoungbloodSupreme Court· 1989-01-23· cited 3,366×
- People v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court· 1991-05-06· cited 549×
- Hammond v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware· 1989-12-28· cited 91×
- Thorne v. Department of Public SafetyAlaska Supreme Court· 1989-05-26· cited 90×
- Commonwealth v. WillieMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1987-07-09· cited 88×
- State v. MatafeoHawaii Supreme Court· 1990-02-20· cited 81×
- Commonwealth v. OlszewskiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1988-03-03· cited 58×
- Commonwealth v. PhoenixMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1991-02-28· cited 57×
- State v. SmagulaSupreme Court of New Hampshire· 1990-08-29· cited 16×
- State v. YoungbloodCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 1989-12-28· cited 15×
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.