Commonwealth v. Einarson

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Einarson

372 N.E.2d 278, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 835, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 663

DecidedJanuary 31, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 372 N.E.2d 278 (Commonwealth v. Einarson) 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. Einarson, 372 N.E.2d 278, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 835, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 663 (Mass. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

The prosecution offered no evidence of the content of any rule or regulation of the board of park commissioners (see G. L. c. 45, §§ 2, 5 and 24; Fitzgerald v. Lewis, 164 Mass. 495, 501 [1895]; Commonwealth v. Crowninshield, 187 Mass. 221, 222, 224 [1905]; Strachan v. Mayor of Everett, 326 Mass. 659, 662 [1951]) or of any town board or committee (see G. L. c. 45, § 14) which forbade anyone to enter or remain in the park or playground (see G. L. c. 266, § 120) after 11:00 p.m. and which could have justified the presence of the signs described by the police officer or the verbal direction he gave the defendant. The judge could not take judicial notice of any such rule or regulation. Brodsky v. Fine, 263 Mass. 51, 54 (1928). Commonwealth v. Berney, 353 Mass. 571, 572 (1968). These points were raised by the fourth ground of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, which should have been allowed. Contrast Commonwealth v. Sherman, 191 Mass. 439, 441 (1906). The exceptions are sustained, and judgment is to be entered for the defendant.

So ordered.

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

The prosecution offered no evidence of the content of any rule or regulation of the board of park commissioners (see G. L. c. 45, §§ 2, 5 and 24; Fitzgerald v. Lewis, 164 Mass. 495, 501 [1895]; Commonwealth v. Crowninshield, 187 Mass. 221, 222, 224 [1905]; Strachan v. Mayor of Everett, 326 Mass. 659, 662 [1951]) or of any town board or committee (see G. L. c. 45, § 14) which forbade anyone to enter or remain in the park or playground (see G. L. c. 266, § 120) after 11:00 p.m. and which could have justified the presence of the signs described by the police officer or the verbal direction he gave the defendant. The judge could not take judicial notice of any such rule or regulation. Brodsky v. Fine, 263 Mass. 51, 54 (1928). Commonwealth v. Berney, 353 Mass. 571, 572 (1968). These points were raised by the fourth ground of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, which should have been allowed. Contrast Commonwealth v. Sherman, 191 Mass. 439, 441 (1906). The exceptions are sustained, and judgment is to be entered for the defendant.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 N.E.2d 278, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 835, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-einarson-massappct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack