Commonwealth v. Ramos

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Ramos

383 N.E.2d 526, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 955, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 808

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedDecember 20, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 383 N.E.2d 526 (Commonwealth v. Ramos) 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. Ramos, 383 N.E.2d 526, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 955, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 808 (Mass. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant was found guilty of assault with force and violence and with intent to rob, under G. L. c. 265, § 20, at a jury waived trial in the Superior Court. The sole issue on appeal (pursuant to G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G) is whether the evidence was sufficient to prove an essential element of the offence; namely, an assault "with force and violence.” The evidence was as follows. At a supermarket checkout counter, the defendant grabbed at $100 in bills which a cashier was holding in her hand. The cashier held onto the money and tugged back. The corners of the bills tore off in the defendant’s hands as a result of the tug-of-war. The defendant ran from the store, and the cashier screamed for someone to stop him. The defendant’s actions in grabbing at the money while the victim resisted by tugging back constituted an assault (see Commonwealth v. Slaney, 345 Mass. 135, 138, 140 [1962]; Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 658, 662-663 [1974], S.C., 367 Mass. 508, 515 [1975]; cf. Commonwealth v. Ordway, 12 Cush. 270 [1853]) with sufficient "force and violence” (see Commonwealth v. Jones, 362 Mass. 83, 89 [1972]; Commonwealth v. Brown, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 883 [1974]) to support the judge’s finding of guilty as to the elements of the offence required to be proved under G. L. c. 265, § 20. The defendant’s motion for a directed finding of not guilty was properly denied.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The defendant was found guilty of assault with force and violence and with intent to rob, under G. L. c. 265, § 20, at a jury waived trial in the Superior Court. The sole issue on appeal (pursuant to G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G) is whether the evidence was sufficient to prove an essential element of the offence; namely, an assault "with force and violence.” The evidence was as follows. At a supermarket checkout counter, the defendant grabbed at $100 in bills which a cashier was holding in her hand. The cashier held onto the money and tugged back. The corners of the bills tore off in the defendant’s hands as a result of the tug-of-war. The defendant ran from the store, and the cashier screamed for someone to stop him. The defendant’s actions in grabbing at the money while the victim resisted by tugging back constituted an assault (see Commonwealth v. Slaney, 345 Mass. 135, 138, 140 [1962]; Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 658, 662-663 [1974], S.C., 367 Mass. 508, 515 [1975]; cf. Commonwealth v. Ordway, 12 Cush. 270 [1853]) with sufficient "force and violence” (see Commonwealth v. Jones, 362 Mass. 83, 89 [1972]; Commonwealth v. Brown, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 883 [1974]) to support the judge’s finding of guilty as to the elements of the offence required to be proved under G. L. c. 265, § 20. The defendant’s motion for a directed finding of not guilty was properly denied.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 N.E.2d 526, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 955, 1978 Mass. App. LEXIS 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-ramos-massappct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack