Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Ragland

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided October 14, 2008No. 06-P-1199PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.

In this appeal, we address the evidentiary standards that govern the admission of grand jury statements when the witness recants the statements during trial and then gives inconsistent testimony, in circumstances where the recanted grand jury statements constitute the proof of an essential element of the offense — here, the element of possession of a knife in the offense of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. We further address what trial evidence will serve to provide the necessary corroboration for the recanted and inconsistent grand jury testimony. See Commonwealth v.…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Commonwealth v. LatimoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
  3. Kentucky v. StincerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. United States v. OwensSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Commonwealth v. KozecMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BelmerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2010
  2. Commonwealth v. FinnertyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2018
  3. Commonwealth v. PechMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2017
  4. Commonwealth v. SennaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2017
  5. Commonwealth v. SlaymanMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API