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. Jansen

Commonwealth v. Jansen
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
March 2, 2011
459 Mass. 21

Rape, Joint Enterprise, Double jeopardy, Joint Venturer, Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA), Consent

The grand jury returned three indictments against the defendant for aggravated rape. The first indictment charged the defendant with aggravated rape for the sexual intercourse he committed with the alleged victim. The second and third indictments charged the defendant with aggravated rape for the sexual acts committed by his alleged joint venturers. At trial, the jury was not able to reach a unanimous verdict, so the judge declared a mistrial. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictments arguing that because the evidence presented at the trial was legally insufficient, double jeopardy barred a retrial. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion as to all of the charges except for the lesser included charge of rape in the first indictment. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed the trial court’s ruling.