Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 4/28/1976

Commonwealth v. Nelson

Citations

346 N.E.2d 839
370 Mass. 192
1976 Mass. LEXIS 965

How courts have described this case

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

ordering new trial for defendant who failed to properly claim exception on appeal, where appellate court determined that new trial was warranted on codefendant’s appeal, and both defendants had filed motions for new trial on same ground
evidence need not require the jury to draw an inference, it is sufficient that the evidence permits the inference to be drawn
“circumstantial evidence ... is the usual mode of proving [conspiracy], since it is not often that direct evidence can be had”
evidence need not require jury to draw inference; sufficient that evidence permits inference to be drawn
evidence need not require jury to draw inference; sufficient that evidence permits inference to be drawn
evidence \need not require the jury to draw the inference\; \sufficient that the evidence permitted the inference\ to be drawn

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hennessey, Reardon, Quirico, Kaplan, Wilkins

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

25 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.