Commonwealth v. Brodsky

400 N.E.2d 283, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 848
Massachusetts Appeals Court·Decided February 20, 1980·Published

Opinion

There has been no showing on this record that the judge [849] abused his discretion or otherwise committed an error of law in excluding certain testimonial and documentary evidence pertaining to the victim. We need say only that even if the defendants could have (which we believe they have not) shown that the excluded evidence was “helpful and relevant to the issue on trial,” Commonwealth v. Shea, 323 Mass. 406, 417-418 (1948), the proffered evidence was properly excludable under G. L. c. 233, § 21B. Moreover, we can find no fault with the judge’s handling of this matter, as it was in full accord with the procedural mandate of the statute. There was no error.

Mitchell Benjoya for the defendants. M. Ashley Brown, Legal Assistant to the District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgments affirmed

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commonwealth v. Brodsky, 400 N.E.2d 283, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 848 (Mass. Ct. App. 1980).

400 N.E.2d 283 (Commonwealth v. Brodsky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Shea
82 N.E.2d 511 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)