Commonwealth v. Castillo
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The practice of judges allowing criminal trials to be conducted on stipulated evidence has long been disfavored because “[i]t invites appeals of the most hair-splitting sort and cannot be justified to save court time.” Commonwealth v. Babcock, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 688, 691 (1988). Commonwealth v. McDowell, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 15, 15 n.l (2004).
Once again, we are called upon to consider a challenge to a judge’s decision to allow the parties to proceed in a criminal matter by stipulating to the evidence. Once again, we must reverse because a judge failed to inquire of the defendant if he had agreed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ZagrodnyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
- Commonwealth v. LewisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
- Commonwealth v. StevensMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
- Commonwealth v. BrownMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2002
- Commonwealth v. HillMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Commonwealth v. MyersMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2012
- Commonwealth v. GomezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2018
- Commonwealth v. OrtizMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2013
- Commonwealth v. RamseyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2013
- Commonwealth v. MonteiroMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.