Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Rudenko

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided June 8, 2009No. 08-P-409PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGrasso, J.

After a jury-waived trial, a judge found the defendant guilty of breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony, see G. L. c. 266, § 16, and larceny over $250, see G. L. c. 266, § 30. On appeal from those convictions, the defendant argues that the Commonwealth (1) presented insufficient evidence, and (2) failed to prove that he broke and entered a “building” within the meaning of the statute. We disagree and affirm the convictions.

1. Sufficiency of the evidence. As related in the Commonwealth’s case at trial, Gary Coleman, a Home Depot employee, arrived at the West…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. LatimoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
  2. Commonwealth v. Zone Book, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  3. Commonwealth v. StuckichMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
  4. Commonwealth v. BurkeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
  5. Commonwealth v. CabreraMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2011
  2. United States v. VannCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2011
  3. United States v. VannCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API