Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Pimental

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided March 27, 2002No. 00-P-261PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMills, J.

The defendant appeals from his conviction on a single-count indictment charging larceny of “one or more firearms,” in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 30, and the denial of his motion for a new trial. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the Commonwealth’s theory of the case; the judge’s failure, sua sponte, to give a specific unanimity instruction; the judge’s failure, sua sponte, to strike certain hearsay evidence; the effectiveness of counsel; and the denial of his motion for a new trial without a hearing. We affirm.

1. Factual background. The jury could have found the following…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SaferianMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
  2. Commonwealth v. SatterfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  3. Commonwealth v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
  4. Commonwealth v. GrandisonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
  5. Commonwealth v. CurtisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SantosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
  2. Commonwealth v. JulienMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003
  3. Commonwealth v. Aldrich (No. 1)Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2015
  4. State v. OrtizCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2023
  5. Commonwealth v. MazzantiniMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2009

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API