Commonwealth v. Rudenko
Massachusetts Appeals Court
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
- Commonwealth v. LatimoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Commonwealth v. Zone Book, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Commonwealth v. StuckichMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2008
- Commonwealth v. BurkeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
- Commonwealth v. CabreraMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2011
- United States v. VannCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2011
- United States v. VannCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2011