Montes v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Montes v. Commonwealth

669 N.E.2d 767, 423 Mass. 1014, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 208

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedAugust 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 669 N.E.2d 767 (Montes v. Commonwealth) 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

Montes v. Commonwealth, 669 N.E.2d 767, 423 Mass. 1014, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 208 (Mass. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Following denial of his motions to dismiss and to suppress, Orlando Montes (defendant) petitioned a single justice of this court under G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.), and requested dismissal of the complaint against him, “as a necessary prophylactic remedy in the interest of justice.” The singlé justice denied relief, and the defendant sought review under SJ.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995).

The defendant has not demonstrated sufficiently that review on appeal, if any, following essential fact finding and a judgment will not adequately protect his interests. We exercise our supervisory power “only in exceptional circumstances and where necessary to protect substantive rights in the absence of an alternative, effective remedy.” Soja v. T.P. Sampson Co., 373 Mass. 630, 631 (1977), and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Following denial of his motions to dismiss and to suppress, Orlando Montes (defendant) petitioned a single justice of this court under G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.), and requested dismissal of the complaint against him, “as a necessary prophylactic remedy in the interest of justice.” The singlé justice denied relief, and the defendant sought review under SJ.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995).

The defendant has not demonstrated sufficiently that review on appeal, if any, following essential fact finding and a judgment will not adequately protect his interests. We exercise our supervisory power “only in exceptional circumstances and where necessary to protect substantive rights in the absence of an alternative, effective remedy.” Soja v. T.P. Sampson Co., 373 Mass. 630, 631 (1977), and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 N.E.2d 767, 423 Mass. 1014, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montes-v-commonwealth-mass-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack