Commonwealth v. Kameese
This text of 445 N.E.2d 617 (Commonwealth v. Kameese) 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.
Opinion
The defendant, William S. Kameese, appeals his conviction for receiving stolen goods pursuant to G. L. c. 266, § 60, challenging the charge to the jury at his trial.* 1 *The defendant’s appeal was entered in the Appeals Court, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
The complaint, dated June 2, 1981, charged the defendant with receiving jewelry stolen from one Rosalind Homes. Homes’s jewelry was taken from her house on June 1,1981. At trial, the main issue was that of the defendant’s knowledge that the jewelry was stolen. The defendant, a jeweler, claimed that he purchased a ring and a bracelet from an unidentified man and woman at a bar for $250 on the evening of June 1, 1981. The next day, the defendant took the jewelry to the Rothmans, other jewelers of his acquaintance, who trade in gold, to leave the pieces for sale on consignment. The Rothmans called Homes and her son that afternoon, because they thought they would be interested in purchasing the pieces. Homes and her son identified the jewelry as two of the pieces stolen from their house.
The charge to the jury is similar to the charge reviewed in Commonwealth v. Burns, ante 178 (1983).2 For the reasons stated in Commonwealth v. Burns, the judgment is reversed, the verdict is set aside, and the case is remanded to the jury-of-six session for a new trial.
So ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
445 N.E.2d 617, 388 Mass. 1004, 1983 Mass. LEXIS 1281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-kameese-mass-1983.