Commonwealth v. Kerrigan

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Kerrigan

196 N.E.2d 190, 346 Mass. 786, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 897

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 5, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 196 N.E.2d 190 (Commonwealth v. Kerrigan) 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.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Kerrigan, 196 N.E.2d 190, 346 Mass. 786, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 897 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal dismissed. John J. Kerrigan is before this court upon an appeal from a denial of his motion for a new trial, a petition for a rehearing of his original appeal (Commonwealth v. Kerrigan, 345 Mass. 508), and a petition for a stay of execution. The judge properly assigned to hear the motion (see Commonwealth v. Gedzium, 261 Mass. 299, 306-307) for a new trial by virtue of the illness of the trial judge at the time ruled that as a matter of law he had no authority to grant the motion. The motion, based upon newly discovered evidence, was not brought within the time specified by G. L. c. 278, § 29. There was no error in the denial of the motion. Commonwealth v. Rollins, 242 Mass. 427, 430-434. Snyder, petitioner, 284 Mass. 367, 369-370. Following argument and consideration by the court of the subject matter contained in the petition for rehearing, the petition is denied. No further judicial question appearing, the petition for a stay of execution is denied. G. L. c. 279, § 49A.

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

Appeal dismissed. John J. Kerrigan is before this court upon an appeal from a denial of his motion for a new trial, a petition for a rehearing of his original appeal (Commonwealth v. Kerrigan, 345 Mass. 508), and a petition for a stay of execution. The judge properly assigned to hear the motion (see Commonwealth v. Gedzium, 261 Mass. 299, 306-307) for a new trial by virtue of the illness of the trial judge at the time ruled that as a matter of law he had no authority to grant the motion. The motion, based upon newly discovered evidence, was not brought within the time specified by G. L. c. 278, § 29. There was no error in the denial of the motion. Commonwealth v. Rollins, 242 Mass. 427, 430-434. Snyder, petitioner, 284 Mass. 367, 369-370. Following argument and consideration by the court of the subject matter contained in the petition for rehearing, the petition is denied. No further judicial question appearing, the petition for a stay of execution is denied. G. L. c. 279, § 49A.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 N.E.2d 190, 346 Mass. 786, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-kerrigan-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack