Commonwealth v. Whalen

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Whalen

394 N.E.2d 966, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 902, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1062

DecidedSeptember 17, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 394 N.E.2d 966 (Commonwealth v. Whalen) 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. Whalen, 394 N.E.2d 966, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 902, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1062 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

1. The first argued exception raises only the question whether the trial judge was required as matter of law to declare a mistrial due to the Commonwealth’s failure to furnish the defendant with a copy of the written pretrial statement of the witness Hughes where the Commonwealth’s failure to comply in that respect with the court’s pretrial order requiring the furnishing of any such statements was based on the police department’s having lost the statement in question. The answer is, "No.” 2. The judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial, particularly in light of his finding that the only allegedly newly discovered evidence of any particular relevance was not to be credited. See Commonwealth v. Dascalakis, 246 Mass. 12, 32-33 (1923); Commonwealth v. Robertson, 357 Mass. 559, 562 (1970).

Judgment affirmed.

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

1. The first argued exception raises only the question whether the trial judge was required as matter of law to declare a mistrial due to the Commonwealth’s failure to furnish the defendant with a copy of the written pretrial statement of the witness Hughes where the Commonwealth’s failure to comply in that respect with the court’s pretrial order requiring the furnishing of any such statements was based on the police department’s having lost the statement in question. The answer is, "No.” 2. The judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial, particularly in light of his finding that the only allegedly newly discovered evidence of any particular relevance was not to be credited. See Commonwealth v. Dascalakis, 246 Mass. 12, 32-33 (1923); Commonwealth v. Robertson, 357 Mass. 559, 562 (1970).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 N.E.2d 966, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 902, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-whalen-massappct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack