Commonwealth v. Mello

362 N.E.2d 1202, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 825, 1977 Mass. App. LEXIS 801
Massachusetts Appeals Court·Decided May 19, 1977·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Although the assignment of error which is directed to two sentences in the judge’s charge brings nothing before this court for review because the assignment is not based on an exception, Commonwealth v. Miller, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 379, 382-383 (1976), we have examined the allegedly erro[826] neons instructions to determine whether there is a likelihood of “a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.” Commonwealth v. Freeman, 352 Mass. 556, 564 (1967). We have concluded that the charge, viewed in its entirety, was not erroneous. The other assignment of error, not having been briefed, is deemed waived.

Melvin S. Louison for the defendant. Mary A. McLaughlin, Special Assistant District Attorney (Lance J. Garth, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Commonwealth v. Mello, 362 N.E.2d 1202, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 825, 1977 Mass. App. LEXIS 801 (Mass. Ct. App. 1977).

362 N.E.2d 1202 (Commonwealth v. Mello) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Mello
413 N.E.2d 1130 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1980)
Commonwealth v. Palmarin
385 N.E.2d 271 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1979)