Commonwealth v. Norman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Norman

545 N.E.2d 1155, 406 Mass. 1001, 1989 Mass. LEXIS 255

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 6, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 545 N.E.2d 1155 (Commonwealth v. Norman) 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. Norman, 545 N.E.2d 1155, 406 Mass. 1001, 1989 Mass. LEXIS 255 (Mass. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

The reason that we took this case was to consider whether jeopardy attaches under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution so as to bar a trial of the defendant in the Superior Court for armed robbery arising from the taking of a motor vehicle after he had been convicted in the District Court of larceny (a lesser included offense) of the same motor vehicle arising from the same taking. The Appeals Court decided that the bar of double jeopardy foreclosed a second trial in the Superior Court. 27 Mass. App. Ct. 82 (1989). We granted the Commonwealth’s application for further appellate review.

For all the reasons advanced by the Appeals Court (the facts are recited in its opinion), we conclude that the holding in Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 169 (1977), bars a second trial of the defendant on an indictment for armed robbery arising out of the same unlawful taking despite our earlier rule to the effect that a conviction or an acquittal of a defendant for larceny in a District Court is no bar to trial of the defendant for armed robbery for the same taking in the Superior Court because the District Court has no trial jurisdiction of armed robbery. Commonwealth v. Mahoney, 331 Mass. 510, 513-514 (1954). We also agree with the Appeals Court’s holding on the issue of waiver. 27 Mass. App. Ct. at 87-88.

The judgment of the Superior court is reversed and the verdict set aside. The indictment is to be dismissed.

So ordered.

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

The reason that we took this case was to consider whether jeopardy attaches under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution so as to bar a trial of the defendant in the Superior Court for armed robbery arising from the taking of a motor vehicle after he had been convicted in the District Court of larceny (a lesser included offense) of the same motor vehicle arising from the same taking. The Appeals Court decided that the bar of double jeopardy foreclosed a second trial in the Superior Court. 27 Mass. App. Ct. 82 (1989). We granted the Commonwealth’s application for further appellate review.

For all the reasons advanced by the Appeals Court (the facts are recited in its opinion), we conclude that the holding in Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 169 (1977), bars a second trial of the defendant on an indictment for armed robbery arising out of the same unlawful taking despite our earlier rule to the effect that a conviction or an acquittal of a defendant for larceny in a District Court is no bar to trial of the defendant for armed robbery for the same taking in the Superior Court because the District Court has no trial jurisdiction of armed robbery. Commonwealth v. Mahoney, 331 Mass. 510, 513-514 (1954). We also agree with the Appeals Court’s holding on the issue of waiver. 27 Mass. App. Ct. at 87-88.

The judgment of the Superior court is reversed and the verdict set aside. The indictment is to be dismissed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 N.E.2d 1155, 406 Mass. 1001, 1989 Mass. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-norman-mass-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack