Commonwealth v. Cantrell

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Cantrell

383 N.E.2d 545, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 958, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 813

DecidedDecember 26, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 383 N.E.2d 545 (Commonwealth v. Cantrell) 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. Cantrell, 383 N.E.2d 545, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 958, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 813 (Mass. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

1. The judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion for sequestration of witnesses was a ruling which, in the circumstances disclosed by the record, lay within the scope of his sound discretion. Commonwealth v. Bettencourt, 361 Mass. 515, 518 (1972). Commonwealth v. Vanderpool, 367 Mass. 743, 748 (1975), and cases cited. Commonwealth v. Parry, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 730, 736 (1974). Commonwealth v. Navarro, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 214, 223 (1974). Compare Commonwealth v. Watkins, 373 Mass. 849, 850-851 (1977) (strong policy favoring sequestration in capital cases). [959]*9592. There is no merit to the defendant’s further contention that the judge abused his discretion in refusing to restrict testimony by the fresh complaint witnesses concerning the details told them by the victim. The case falls within the usual rule discussed at length in Commonwealth v. Bailey, 370 Mass. 388, 391-397 (1976).

The case was submitted on briefs. Susan J. Baronoff for the defendant. Antone B. Cruz, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgments affirmed.

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

1. The judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion for sequestration of witnesses was a ruling which, in the circumstances disclosed by the record, lay within the scope of his sound discretion. Commonwealth v. Bettencourt, 361 Mass. 515, 518 (1972). Commonwealth v. Vanderpool, 367 Mass. 743, 748 (1975), and cases cited. Commonwealth v. Parry, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 730, 736 (1974). Commonwealth v. Navarro, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 214, 223 (1974). Compare Commonwealth v. Watkins, 373 Mass. 849, 850-851 (1977) (strong policy favoring sequestration in capital cases). [959]*9592. There is no merit to the defendant’s further contention that the judge abused his discretion in refusing to restrict testimony by the fresh complaint witnesses concerning the details told them by the victim. The case falls within the usual rule discussed at length in Commonwealth v. Bailey, 370 Mass. 388, 391-397 (1976).

The case was submitted on briefs. Susan J. Baronoff for the defendant. Antone B. Cruz, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 N.E.2d 545, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 958, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-cantrell-massappct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack