Commonwealth v. Perry

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Perry

620 N.E.2d 44, 416 Mass. 1003, 1993 Mass. LEXIS 576

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 4, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 620 N.E.2d 44 (Commonwealth v. Perry) 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. Perry, 620 N.E.2d 44, 416 Mass. 1003, 1993 Mass. LEXIS 576 (Mass. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

The Commonwealth appealed from the allowance by a judge in the Superior Court of the defendant’s motion to dismiss indictments charging manslaughter and illegal possession of a hypodermic needle. The Appeals Court vacated the order, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 127 (1993), and we granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review. See G. L. c. 211 A, [1004]*1004§ 11 (1992 ed.). We vacate the order allowing the motion to dismiss essentially for the same reasons advanced by the Appeals Court. However, we add a note. In Commonwealth v. Catalina, 407 Mass. 779, 790-791 (1990), on which both the Commonwealth and the defendant appear to rely, we held that the distributing of a particularly potent form of heroin to one who injected it and died as a result constituted evidence sufficient for an indictment by a grand jury of manslaughter. See Commonwealth v. Catalina, supra at 790 n.12. However, we did not limit the effect of this rule to that specific form of heroin because all heroin of unknown strength is inherently dangerous and carries a “high probability that death will occur.” Id. at 791, quoting with approval People v. Cruciani, 70 Misc. 2d 528, 536 (N.Y. 1972).

The order dismissing the indictments is vacated, and the cases are to stand for trial.

So ordered.

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

The Commonwealth appealed from the allowance by a judge in the Superior Court of the defendant’s motion to dismiss indictments charging manslaughter and illegal possession of a hypodermic needle. The Appeals Court vacated the order, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 127 (1993), and we granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review. See G. L. c. 211 A, [1004]*1004§ 11 (1992 ed.). We vacate the order allowing the motion to dismiss essentially for the same reasons advanced by the Appeals Court. However, we add a note. In Commonwealth v. Catalina, 407 Mass. 779, 790-791 (1990), on which both the Commonwealth and the defendant appear to rely, we held that the distributing of a particularly potent form of heroin to one who injected it and died as a result constituted evidence sufficient for an indictment by a grand jury of manslaughter. See Commonwealth v. Catalina, supra at 790 n.12. However, we did not limit the effect of this rule to that specific form of heroin because all heroin of unknown strength is inherently dangerous and carries a “high probability that death will occur.” Id. at 791, quoting with approval People v. Cruciani, 70 Misc. 2d 528, 536 (N.Y. 1972).

The order dismissing the indictments is vacated, and the cases are to stand for trial.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 N.E.2d 44, 416 Mass. 1003, 1993 Mass. LEXIS 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-perry-mass-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack