Commonwealth v. Martin

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Martin

374 N.E.2d 293, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 858, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 695

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMarch 22, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 374 N.E.2d 293 (Commonwealth v. Martin) 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. Martin, 374 N.E.2d 293, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 858, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 695 (Mass. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

1. It was not error to deny the defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress the victim’s anticipated identification of the defendant as the man who had raped her; it is clear from the face of the motion and from the argument of defense counsel that the motion raised no constitutional question and was directed solely to the weight which should be accorded to the victim’s testimony. 2. The defendant was not harmed by the judge’s refusal to strike out the unresponsive portion of the victim’s answer to the question as to what she had said to her brother immediately following the rape; the unresponsive portion was material to the issue of the identity of the rapist, and virtually the same evidence was [859]*859subsequently admitted without objection during the direct questioning of the brother on the same subject.

Walter T. Healy for the defendant. Francis R. Fecteau, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgment affirmed.

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

1. It was not error to deny the defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress the victim’s anticipated identification of the defendant as the man who had raped her; it is clear from the face of the motion and from the argument of defense counsel that the motion raised no constitutional question and was directed solely to the weight which should be accorded to the victim’s testimony. 2. The defendant was not harmed by the judge’s refusal to strike out the unresponsive portion of the victim’s answer to the question as to what she had said to her brother immediately following the rape; the unresponsive portion was material to the issue of the identity of the rapist, and virtually the same evidence was [859]*859subsequently admitted without objection during the direct questioning of the brother on the same subject.

Walter T. Healy for the defendant. Francis R. Fecteau, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 N.E.2d 293, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 858, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-martin-massappct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack