Commonwealth v. Dreyer
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBrown, J.
The defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty of possession of burglarious implements should have been allowed. The indictment here charged the defendant with possession of a “machine, tool, or implement adapted and designed for cutting through, forcing or breaking open a building, room, vault, safe or other depository, in order to steal therefrom money or other property, or to commit any other crime, . . . with intent to use or employ or allow the same to be used or employed for such purpose” (emphasis supplied). Compare Commonwealth v. Armenia, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 33, 38-39…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LatimoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Commonwealth v. KrasnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
- Commonwealth v. ArmeniaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1976
- Commonwealth v. MahnkeMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1982
- Commonwealth v. SchultzMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1983