Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1/24/1995

Commonwealth v. Woods

Citations

419 Mass. 366
645 N.E.2d 1153
1995 Mass. LEXIS 15

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “police officers’ testimony that the defendant was involved in a drug sale was, in effect, expert opinion that the defendant was guilty of the charges” and “was unnecessary and impermissibly intruded on the jury’s vital fact finding function”
noting that Miranda warning is required before asking defendant about employment status in a drug case where defendant's statement that he is unemployed may prove incriminating because defendant possessed substantial amount of cash at time of arrest
noting that Miranda warning is required before asking defendant about employment status in a drug case where defendant’s statement that he is unemployed may prove incriminating because defendant possessed substantial amount of cash at time of arrest
setting out the scope of the Massachusetts “routine booking exception” in light of Muniz
police officers’ testimony that defendant involved in drug transaction impermissible expert opinion that defendant guilty of charges
testimony of police witnesses to transaction, that defendant engaged in drug dealing, was impermissible opinion of guilt

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Liacos

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

28 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.