Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Mendoza

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided October 29, 1979PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Commonwealth v. RodriquezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
  2. Commonwealth v. MorrowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
  3. Commonwealth v. SitkoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  4. Commonwealth v. MurphyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1973
  5. 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

  1. Commonwealth v. WhiteMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API