Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 3/9/1992

Commonwealth v. Rosa

Citations

587 N.E.2d 767
412 Mass. 147
1992 Mass. LEXIS 138

How courts have described this case

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

reversing conviction where prosecutor argued as though prior inconsistent statements were substantive evidence
curative instruction regarding the prosecutor’s improper closing argument not sufficient and new trial required given the importance to the Commonwealth’s case of the issue that was part of improper argument
prosecutor in his closing argument improperly urged the jury to use testimony, admitted for the limited purpose of impeachment, as substantive evidence to cast doubt on defendant’s alibi and to support eyewitness identification
prosecutor’s argument in closing that testimony admitted for the limited purpose of impeachment was evidence supporting an eyewitness identification was an impermissible use of the testimony for substantive purposes and constituted reversible error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Liacos, Wilkins, Abrams, Nolan, Greaney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

24 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.