Commonwealth v. Daniels

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Daniels

304 N.E.2d 197, 364 Mass. 829, 1973 Mass. LEXIS 474

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 304 N.E.2d 197 (Commonwealth v. Daniels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Daniels, 304 N.E.2d 197, 364 Mass. 829, 1973 Mass. LEXIS 474 (Mass. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant was tried on four indictments based on unlawful possession and sale of heroin and, having been found guilty on all indictments, was sentenced. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court amended the judgments by vacating the sentences on two indictments. The defendant is here on assignments of error, the case having been taken under the provisions of G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G. She complains of a part of the contents of the charge to the jury. The charge was given without objection or exception and this fact disposes of the appeal. As we have frequently stated, in a case tried subject to G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, “an assignment of error not based on an exception brings nothing to this court for review.” Commonwealth v. Myers, 356 Mass. 343, 346 (1969), and cases cited. We further note for guidance of counsel in the trial of criminal cases our statement in Commonwealth v. Foley, 358 Mass. 233, 236 (1970), expressing “our disapproval of the constantly growing practice of certain counsel arguing alleged errors of the trial judge where no exceptions were taken.”

Judgments affirmed.

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

The defendant was tried on four indictments based on unlawful possession and sale of heroin and, having been found guilty on all indictments, was sentenced. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court amended the judgments by vacating the sentences on two indictments. The defendant is here on assignments of error, the case having been taken under the provisions of G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G. She complains of a part of the contents of the charge to the jury. The charge was given without objection or exception and this fact disposes of the appeal. As we have frequently stated, in a case tried subject to G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, “an assignment of error not based on an exception brings nothing to this court for review.” Commonwealth v. Myers, 356 Mass. 343, 346 (1969), and cases cited. We further note for guidance of counsel in the trial of criminal cases our statement in Commonwealth v. Foley, 358 Mass. 233, 236 (1970), expressing “our disapproval of the constantly growing practice of certain counsel arguing alleged errors of the trial judge where no exceptions were taken.”

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 N.E.2d 197, 364 Mass. 829, 1973 Mass. LEXIS 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-daniels-mass-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack