Commonwealth v. Dozier

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Dozier

366 N.E.2d 1270, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 865, 1977 Mass. App. LEXIS 847

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedSeptember 14, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 366 N.E.2d 1270 (Commonwealth v. Dozier) 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. Dozier, 366 N.E.2d 1270, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 865, 1977 Mass. App. LEXIS 847 (Mass. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

The Commonwealth has appealed (G. L. c. 278, § 28E) from the allowance of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from the defendant’s apartment and automobile pursuant to a search warrant, supported only by a document, purporting to be an affidavit, on which the jurat was unsigned. The document was inadequate as a basis for the warrant; the motion to suppress was properly allowed. From the face of the document (see Commonwealth v. Monosson, 351 Mass. 327, 328-329 [1966]; Commonwealth v. Penta, 352 Mass. 271, 274-275 [1967]) it could not be determined that it was an affidavit sworn to before a “Justice or Special Justice, Clerk or Assistant Clerk,” as required by G. L. c. 276, § 2B, as amended by St. 1965, c. 384.¹ "Indeed the Commonwealth concedes in its brief that “[t]he affidavit did not [866]*866indicate who[m the affiant] swore in front of, if anyone.” Commonwealth v. Snow, 363 Mass. 778, 784-786 (1973), and Commonwealth v. Hanscom, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 840 (1974), are not to the contrary. In those cases the place in the jurat for the name of the affiant was left blank; but his identity was clear from other parts of the affidavit. He had signed the affidavit and the jurat was signed by a court clerk. “The only possible reasonable conclusion which [could] be drawn from a reading of the... affidavit” was that the affiant “as required by § 2B, as amended, appeared before the court clerk and swore that the allegations by him subscribed were true.” Commonwealth v. Snow, 363 Mass. at 785-786. Such is not the case with the warrant application before us.

Imelda C. La Mountain, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Arthur H. Gregory for the defendant.

Order allowing motion to suppress evidence affirmed.

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

The Commonwealth has appealed (G. L. c. 278, § 28E) from the allowance of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from the defendant’s apartment and automobile pursuant to a search warrant, supported only by a document, purporting to be an affidavit, on which the jurat was unsigned. The document was inadequate as a basis for the warrant; the motion to suppress was properly allowed. From the face of the document (see Commonwealth v. Monosson, 351 Mass. 327, 328-329 [1966]; Commonwealth v. Penta, 352 Mass. 271, 274-275 [1967]) it could not be determined that it was an affidavit sworn to before a “Justice or Special Justice, Clerk or Assistant Clerk,” as required by G. L. c. 276, § 2B, as amended by St. 1965, c. 384.¹ "Indeed the Commonwealth concedes in its brief that “[t]he affidavit did not [866]*866indicate who[m the affiant] swore in front of, if anyone.” Commonwealth v. Snow, 363 Mass. 778, 784-786 (1973), and Commonwealth v. Hanscom, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 840 (1974), are not to the contrary. In those cases the place in the jurat for the name of the affiant was left blank; but his identity was clear from other parts of the affidavit. He had signed the affidavit and the jurat was signed by a court clerk. “The only possible reasonable conclusion which [could] be drawn from a reading of the... affidavit” was that the affiant “as required by § 2B, as amended, appeared before the court clerk and swore that the allegations by him subscribed were true.” Commonwealth v. Snow, 363 Mass. at 785-786. Such is not the case with the warrant application before us.

Imelda C. La Mountain, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Arthur H. Gregory for the defendant.

Order allowing motion to suppress evidence affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 N.E.2d 1270, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 865, 1977 Mass. App. LEXIS 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-dozier-massappct-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack