Commonwealth v. Velasquez
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtGreen, J.
The defendant was tried and convicted, under G. L. c. 90, § 24(2)(a), of leaving the scene of an accident after causing property damage. At trial, in opposition to the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty, the Commonwealth proceeded successfully on the theory that a conviction under that statute does not require proof that the accident in question caused property damage. On appeal, the Commonwealth presses the same claim. We disagree, and reverse the conviction.
Facts. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, see Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LatimoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Commonwealth v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamship AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1967
- Commonwealth v. PlattMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
- Commonwealth v. HorsfallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Commonwealth v. MillicanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. HamiltonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2011
- Commonwealth v. DaleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2012
- Commonwealth v. LeBlancMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2016
- Commonwealth v. NutbrownMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2012
- Commonwealth v. LeBlancMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2016