Commonwealth v. Samaras

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Samaras

410 N.E.2d 743, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 910, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1355

Massachusetts Appeals Court·Decided October 8, 1980·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

There was sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to find that the defendant had more than momentary possession of his gun and was “carrying” a firearm within the meaning of G. L. c. 269, § 10(a), and that the violation, which occurred on the sidewalk in front of the defendant’s house, took place in a location not within the exclusive control of the defendant. Commonwealth v. Seay, 376 Mass. 735, 742-743 (1978). Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 377 Mass. 453, 459-460 (1979).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either answered by Commonwealth v. Jones, 372 Mass. 403 (1977), or are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

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

There was sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to find that the defendant had more than momentary possession of his gun and was “carrying” a firearm within the meaning of G. L. c. 269, § 10(a), and that the violation, which occurred on the sidewalk in front of the defendant’s house, took place in a location not within the exclusive control of the defendant. Commonwealth v. Seay, 376 Mass. 735, 742-743 (1978). Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 377 Mass. 453, 459-460 (1979).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either answered by Commonwealth v. Jones, 372 Mass. 403 (1977), or are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Commonwealth v. Samaras, 410 N.E.2d 743, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 910, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1355 (Mass. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

410 N.E.2d 743 (Commonwealth v. Samaras) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related