Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Fitzgerald
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided April 24, 1992PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGreaney, J.
In Commonwealth v. Fitzgerald, 402 Mass. 517 (1988), we ordered a new trial for the defendant on his conviction of rape because he should have been allowed to inform the jury that he had been sterilized by a vasectomy procedure performed twelve years prior to the alleged rape. We concluded that this evidence would have tended to show that the defendant was not the source of seminal fluid found by the Commonwealth’s chemist on the complainant’s underpants. After retrial, the defendant was again convicted of rape. The defendant appealed, and we granted his application for direct appellate…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Commonwealth v. JoyceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
- Commonwealth v. AndrewsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1988
- Commonwealth v. NassarMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1966
- Commonwealth v. PerrotMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- Commonwealth v. ChretienMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RiceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
- Commonwealth v. PearceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
- Commonwealth v. ParentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2013
- Commonwealth v. MountryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2012
- Commonwealth v. BaxterMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1994
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.