Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 5/27/2004

Commonwealth v. Miranda

Citations

441 Mass. 783
809 N.E.2d 487
2004 Mass. LEXIS 293

How courts have described this case

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

holding that trial on second indictment alleging repeat offender count, separate from indictment on primary offense for which defendant was convicted, did not offend principles of double jeopardy
explaining that § 11A “requires a defendant to be tried in a two-step, bifurcated procedure: ‘first, on the underlying substantive crime and, then, in a separate proceeding, on that component of the charge referring to the crime as a second or subsequent offense’ ”
“the amendment of [an] indictment to include [a] repeat-offender component. . . was a matter of form, not substance”
no prejudice where defendant was fully informed of nature of charge and assented to amendment
indictments including repeat offender charges must adequately notify defendant of crime charged and jeopardy faced
defendant participated as lookout in drug deal by looking up and down street during transaction and directing seller to “hurry up”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ireland

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

36 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.