Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 10/15/2012

Marshall v. Commonwealth

Citations

463 Mass. 529
977 N.E.2d 40
2012 WL 4841327
2012 Mass. LEXIS 977

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that the aiding- and-abetting statute “had long been viewed as a unified theory of joint venture liability”
conduct that historically had been described as accessory before fact \plainly falls under the rubric of accomplice liability\
conduct that historically had been described as accessory before fact “plainly falls under the rubric of accomplice liability”
“The State ... generally cannot retry a defendant ‘when an appellate court overturns a conviction because of insufficient evidence’ ” [citation omitted]
“the prohibition against double jeopardy . . . does not, however, necessarily bar a retrial where a conviction has been set aside on appeal” [citations omitted]
conduct that historically has been described as accessory before fact \plainly falls under the rubric of accomplice liability\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cordy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

29 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.