Commonwealth v. Dunn

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Dunn

375 N.E.2d 1230, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 881, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 726

Massachusetts Appeals Court·Decided May 16, 1978·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The sole ground of the motion for a new trial was one winch concededly could have been assigned as error and argued when the defendant appealed from the convictions which were affirmed in Commonwealth v. Dunn, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 708, further appellate review denied, 367 Mass. 912 (1975). Accordingly, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in simply denying the motion without a hearing and without ruling on the question sought to be raised by the motion. Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 364 Mass. 211, 229-231 (1973). Commonwealth v. Cresta, ante 855 (1978). If we were required to consider the question, we would conclude that it is devoid of merit.

Exceptions overruled.

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

The sole ground of the motion for a new trial was one winch concededly could have been assigned as error and argued when the defendant appealed from the convictions which were affirmed in Commonwealth v. Dunn, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 708, further appellate review denied, 367 Mass. 912 (1975). Accordingly, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in simply denying the motion without a hearing and without ruling on the question sought to be raised by the motion. Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 364 Mass. 211, 229-231 (1973). Commonwealth v. Cresta, ante 855 (1978). If we were required to consider the question, we would conclude that it is devoid of merit.

Exceptions overruled.

Commonwealth v. Dunn, 375 N.E.2d 1230, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 881, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 726 (Mass. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

375 N.E.2d 1230 (Commonwealth v. Dunn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related