Commonwealth v. Schultz
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
1. The evidence offered in support of No. 83-80C was insufficient to warrant a finding that the defendant had acted “maliciously” within the meaning of the second clause of G. L. c. 266, § 114. See Commonwealth v. Peruzzi, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 437, 440-444 (1983), and cased cited. 2. The integrity of the fence was only as good as the padlocked chain which held together the two halves of the gate which, when swung open, permitted vehicular access through the fence, with the result that the chain constituted a part of a “fence” within the meaning of the same clause of § 114. That being so, there…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LatimoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Commonwealth v. PeruzziMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1983
- Commonwealth v. SubiloskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1967
- Commonwealth v. SalernoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1970
- Commonwealth v. TilleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DreyerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1984
- Commonwealth v. HoganMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1996
- Commonwealth v. DreyerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1984
- Commonwealth v. DreyerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1984