Commonwealth v. Downey

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Downey

426 N.E.2d 169, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 947, 1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 1211

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedSeptember 28, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 426 N.E.2d 169 (Commonwealth v. Downey) 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. Downey, 426 N.E.2d 169, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 947, 1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 1211 (Mass. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

A judge, sitting in the jury of six session of the Boston Municipal Court, has reported under Mass.R.Crim.P. 34, 378 Mass. 905 (1979), certain questions of law relating to the validity of regulations (appearing in 540 Code Mass. Regs. § 2.09 [1978]) which prescribe standards for protective headgear to be worn by motorcyclists. See G. L. c. 90, § 7, first par., the third from last sentence. It does not appear from the [948]*948record that the defendants wore any protective headgear at all. Were that the case, it would not be necessary to consider whether any uncertainty “may arise at the periphery of the prohibition.” Commonwealth v. Guest, ante 941 (1981), and cases cited. The report is premature because it may be that no occasion exists to consider the question reported. The report, therefore, is discharged.

Robert W. Hagopian for the defendants. Michael J. Traft, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

So ordered.

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

A judge, sitting in the jury of six session of the Boston Municipal Court, has reported under Mass.R.Crim.P. 34, 378 Mass. 905 (1979), certain questions of law relating to the validity of regulations (appearing in 540 Code Mass. Regs. § 2.09 [1978]) which prescribe standards for protective headgear to be worn by motorcyclists. See G. L. c. 90, § 7, first par., the third from last sentence. It does not appear from the [948]*948record that the defendants wore any protective headgear at all. Were that the case, it would not be necessary to consider whether any uncertainty “may arise at the periphery of the prohibition.” Commonwealth v. Guest, ante 941 (1981), and cases cited. The report is premature because it may be that no occasion exists to consider the question reported. The report, therefore, is discharged.

Robert W. Hagopian for the defendants. Michael J. Traft, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 N.E.2d 169, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 947, 1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 1211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-downey-massappct-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack