Massachusetts Appeals Court· 11/14/2003

Commonwealth v. Johnston

Citations

60 Mass. App. Ct. 13
799 N.E.2d 118
2003 Mass. App. LEXIS 1255

How courts have described this case

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

pulling the victim’s hair constituted assault and battery, and was distinct from the act of rape
“We are not obliged on appeal to address new arguments in support of . . . motions to suppress that were not argued before the trial judge”
\Rule 13[a][2] of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a defendant state the grounds on which the motion [to suppress] is based 'with particularity' \
Miranda challenge not preserved where warnings were provided to defendant on written police form
“A defendant’s conviction of both offenses may stand where the acts to support the conviction of [one offense] are separate and distinct from the acts used to support the conviction of assault and battery”
pulling victim’s hair and raping her distinct acts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cypher

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

39 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.