Commonwealth v. Mendoza
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant was convicted on an indictment charging her with being an accessory before the fact (G. L. c. 274, § 2) to the principal’s unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, to wit: heroin. The only error assigned by the defendant is the denial of her motion for a directed verdict.
The defendant’s argument that she was, at most, "a casual facilitator” (see, e.g., Beckett v. United States, 379 F.2d 863, 865 [9th Cir. 1967]) is easily refuted by viewing merely a small portion of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RodriquezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
- Commonwealth v. MorrowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
- Commonwealth v. SitkoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Commonwealth v. MurphyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1973
- Robert Claude Beckett v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. WhiteMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1995