Commonwealth v. Pina

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Pina

326 N.E.2d 724, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 745, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 776

DecidedApril 30, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 326 N.E.2d 724 (Commonwealth v. Pina) 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. Pina, 326 N.E.2d 724, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 745, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 776 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

As the defendant’s bill of exceptions and brief are addressed to a ruling which was not made the subject of an exception, nothing is before us for decision. Commonwealth v. Underwood, 358 Mass. 506, 509 (1970). The question now sought to be challenged was asked during the course of redirect examination and called for no more than a repetition of a part of the hearsay testimony which the defendant had already elicited during his cross-examination of the witness. The defendant was not [746]*746harmed, and there is no risk of a miscarriage of justice. Contrast Commonwealth v. Freeman, 352 Mass. 556, 563-564 (1967).

The case was submitted on briefs. Richard S. Goldstein for the defendant. Helen Murphy Doona, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Exceptions overruled.

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

As the defendant’s bill of exceptions and brief are addressed to a ruling which was not made the subject of an exception, nothing is before us for decision. Commonwealth v. Underwood, 358 Mass. 506, 509 (1970). The question now sought to be challenged was asked during the course of redirect examination and called for no more than a repetition of a part of the hearsay testimony which the defendant had already elicited during his cross-examination of the witness. The defendant was not [746]*746harmed, and there is no risk of a miscarriage of justice. Contrast Commonwealth v. Freeman, 352 Mass. 556, 563-564 (1967).

The case was submitted on briefs. Richard S. Goldstein for the defendant. Helen Murphy Doona, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 N.E.2d 724, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 745, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-pina-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack