Commonwealth v. Strahan
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
After a jury-waived trial in the District Court, the defendant was convicted of trespass (G. L. c. 266, § 120) and making annoying telephone calls (G. L. c. 269, § 14A). On appeal, he claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence of notice and trespass and (2) it could not be found beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole purpose of his telephone calls was to harass and annoy. We conclude that the Commonwealth offered sufficient, competent evidence of notice and trespass but failed to prove that the sole reason for the telephone calls was to harass and annoy.
The following facts could have…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Commonwealth v. HoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- People v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1977
- Commonwealth v. RichardsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Commonwealth v. ReynoldsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958
- United States v. DarseyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. JonesAppellate Court of Illinois · 2002
- Commonwealth v. WotanMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1994
- Commonwealth v. McGrathMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2026
- Durie v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
- People v. JonesAppellate Court of Illinois · 2002