Maffit (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

How courts have described this case

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

• vacating sentence of CPSL where imposed pursuant to indictment that failed to set forth defendant’s predicate offenses
• overruling Appeals Court’s interpretation of art. 12 “excusing indictment as a repeat offender when the predicate convictions expose the defendant to a higher mandatory minimum sentence, but the same maximum”
• striking down G. L. c. 275, § 18, in part, as unconstitutionally vague
• striking down G. L. c. 275, § 18, in part, as unconstitutionally vague
• CPSL provision of G. L. c. 275, § 18, unconstitutionally vague as applied to “Category 1” and “Category 2” offenders
• “If a defendant is made susceptible to a prescribed statutorily enhanced penalty because of a former conviction, the predicate offense must be alleged in the complaint or indictment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).