Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commonwealth v. Dreyer

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided September 21, 1984Published

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

  1. Commonwealth v. LatimoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
  2. Commonwealth v. KrasnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
  3. Commonwealth v. ArmeniaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1976
  4. Commonwealth v. MahnkeMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1982
  5. Commonwealth v. SchultzMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API