Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 8/3/2011

Commonwealth v. Smith

Citations

460 Mass. 318
951 N.E.2d 322
2011 Mass. LEXIS 685

How courts have described this case

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

defendant discovered victim, whom he had been dating for six weeks, engaging in oral sex with another man
“[I]t should be a very rare situation where, following the direct appeal, relief is granted based on a claim of error that either was or could have been raised at the trial or in the direct appeal”
“The substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice standard that is associated with plenary review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, ... is more forgiving to a defendant than the substantial risk standard applicable in other criminal cases” [emphasis omitted]
explaining the difference between the two standards of review
“Moreover in a capital case, issues raised in a postappeal motion for a new trial that were or could have been raised at trial or in the direct appeal are to be measured by the substantial risk of miscarriage of justice standard”
reasonable provocation must meet subjective and objective standards

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Spina

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

41 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.