Commonwealth v. Butler

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Butler

389 N.E.2d 431, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 918, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1312

DecidedMay 11, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 389 N.E.2d 431 (Commonwealth v. Butler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Butler, 389 N.E.2d 431, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 918, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1312 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

From the defendant’s bill of exceptions it is clear that the evidence introduced by the Commonwealth was insufficient to warrant the defendant’s conviction of using a motor vehicle without authority in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a). Therefore, the denial of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was error. It was no more than conjecture that the defendant had knowledge that the taxi involved in the accident was being used without authority or that he was either the operator of or a passenger in that vehicle. See Commonwealth v. Boone, 356 Mass. 85, 86-87 (1969); Commonwealth v. Conway, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 547, 554 (1974); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 956 (1978). The fact that the defendant was observed running from the scene of a three-car accident, at which a number of people had gathered, was, at most, evidence of consciousness of guilt which, standing by itself, was insufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. See Commonwealth v. Fancy, 349 Mass. 196, 201 (1965); Commonwealth v. Spina, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 805 (1973). Contrast Commonwealth v. Johnson, ante 191, 193 (1979). The judgment is reversed, the verdict is set aside and judgment is to be entered for the defendant.

So ordered.

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

From the defendant’s bill of exceptions it is clear that the evidence introduced by the Commonwealth was insufficient to warrant the defendant’s conviction of using a motor vehicle without authority in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a). Therefore, the denial of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was error. It was no more than conjecture that the defendant had knowledge that the taxi involved in the accident was being used without authority or that he was either the operator of or a passenger in that vehicle. See Commonwealth v. Boone, 356 Mass. 85, 86-87 (1969); Commonwealth v. Conway, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 547, 554 (1974); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 956 (1978). The fact that the defendant was observed running from the scene of a three-car accident, at which a number of people had gathered, was, at most, evidence of consciousness of guilt which, standing by itself, was insufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. See Commonwealth v. Fancy, 349 Mass. 196, 201 (1965); Commonwealth v. Spina, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 805 (1973). Contrast Commonwealth v. Johnson, ante 191, 193 (1979). The judgment is reversed, the verdict is set aside and judgment is to be entered for the defendant.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 N.E.2d 431, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 918, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-butler-massappct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack