Com. v. Hanson

Commonwealth v. Hanson
Massachusetts Appeals Court
April 8, 2011.
79 Mass. App. Ct. 233

Double Jeopardy, Assistance of counsel, Sufficiency of the Evidence

The jury found the defendant guilty of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, distribution of crack cocaine, and distribution within a school zone.  On appeal, the Commonwealth conceded that it was an error to admit the drug certificates into evidence against the defendant.  The Commonwealth agreed that the Appeals Court should reverse the defendant’s convictions.  However, the defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence at trial to find him guilty and double jeopardy should bar a retrial of the defendant.  The defendant also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective in that he failed to file a motion to suppress the crack cocaine that the officer found before the defendant’s arrest.  The Appeals Court disagreed with the defendant and found that the Commonwealth could retry the defendant with the evidence presented at trial.

Com v. McGillvary

Commonwealth v. McGillvary
January 25, 2011.
78 Mass.App.Ct. 644

Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence, Operation, Jury Instructions, Defendant's decision not to testify, Assistance of counsel, Prior conviction, Speedy trial

The defendant was convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), fourth offense.  On appeal, the defendant made several challenges.  First, he challenged whether he actually operated a motor vehicle, as required by G. L. c. 90 § 24.  Second, the defendant claimed that the Commonwealth did not present a sufficient amount of evidence to prove that he operated a motor vehicle or that the defendant had prior convictions.  Third, the defendant argued that the prosecutor’s representation of the evidence during his closing argument created a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice.  Fourth, the defendant contended that his right to testify was muzzled.  Fifth, the defendant claimed the judge abused his discretion by denying his motion to replace his attorney.  Lastly, the defendant argued that he was denied his right to a speedy trial.  The judgment was affirmed.