Commonwealth v. Vetrano

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Vetrano

269 N.E.2d 709, 359 Mass. 756, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 977

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 10, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 269 N.E.2d 709 (Commonwealth v. Vetrano) 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. Vetrano, 269 N.E.2d 709, 359 Mass. 756, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 977 (Mass. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Vetrauo was convicted in a trial before a Superior Court judge under G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, on charges of possessing marihuana and amphetamines. Prior to trial the judge denied a motion to suppress drug capsules and plant fragments found in a bag in Vetrano’s possession and taken from his person when he entered the apartment of Mrs. Starlene Walsh during a police search of the apartment pursuant to a warrant. The warrant and supporting affidavit, although discussed with the trial judge, are not before us as exhibits and do not appear in the transcript. They were shown to the judge “by way of background.” The burden, of couise, was on Vetrauo to prove, if he could, that the search was not made pursuant to a valid warrant based on adequate information to the issuing magistrate contained in the supporting affidavit. See Commonwealth v. Fancy, 349 Mass. 196, 202-203; Commonwealth v. Owens, 350 Mass. 633, 635-636. No such burden was sustained.

Judgments affirmed.

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

Vetrauo was convicted in a trial before a Superior Court judge under G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, on charges of possessing marihuana and amphetamines. Prior to trial the judge denied a motion to suppress drug capsules and plant fragments found in a bag in Vetrano’s possession and taken from his person when he entered the apartment of Mrs. Starlene Walsh during a police search of the apartment pursuant to a warrant. The warrant and supporting affidavit, although discussed with the trial judge, are not before us as exhibits and do not appear in the transcript. They were shown to the judge “by way of background.” The burden, of couise, was on Vetrauo to prove, if he could, that the search was not made pursuant to a valid warrant based on adequate information to the issuing magistrate contained in the supporting affidavit. See Commonwealth v. Fancy, 349 Mass. 196, 202-203; Commonwealth v. Owens, 350 Mass. 633, 635-636. No such burden was sustained.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 N.E.2d 709, 359 Mass. 756, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-vetrano-mass-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack