Commonwealth v. Snyder
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence in the Superior Court. After that motion was denied, the defendant admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilty of the offense charged. The defendant now claims that he has preserved his right to challenge on appeal the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress. The trial judge (who was not the motion judge) stated that he was going to “treat [the defendant’s admission to sufficient facts] as a plea of guilty” and proceeded to interrogate the defendant fully in the same manner as all defendants who plead guilty. See, e.g., Commonwealth…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ZionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
- Commonwealth v. TaylorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
- State v. ParkhurstSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1981
- United States v. Lewis Lee BonifaceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
3Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DuquetteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Glenn v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2006
- Commonwealth v. RodriguezMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1984
- Commonwealth v. NydamMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
- Glenn v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2006