Commonwealth v. Mendrala
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtDreben, J.
Convicted of indecent assault and battery and attempted rape, the defendants appeal claiming error in evidentiary rulings by the trial judge and also urging that they are entitled to a new trial by reason of prosecutorial misconduct. We reverse because, contrary to the principles of Commonwealth v. Gardner, 350 Mass. 664, 665-667 (1966), and Commonwealth v. Montmeny, 360 Mass. 526, 528 (1971), the Commonwealth was permitted to elicit, over objection, a direct opinion from a physician that the complainant was the victim of a sexual assault.
1. Bailey’s motion for a required finding of not…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Simon v. SolomonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- State v. MyersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. SaldanaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Commonwealth v. RussMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
- Commonwealth v. KelleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- United States v. James T. WhittedCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
- United States v. BirdsallCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1998
- Commonwealth v. RiveraMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
- Commonwealth v. BaldwinMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1987
- Commonwealth v. ClementsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2001
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.