Adams v. Adams (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-182-13)
Superintendence review denied where interlocutory orders can be reviewed through ordinary appeal from final judgment; efficiency concerns insufficient to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction.
Superintendence review denied where interlocutory orders can be reviewed through ordinary appeal from final judgment; efficiency concerns insufficient to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction.
Board of Registration in Pharmacy properly entered default and revoked pharmacist's license after he failed to appear for scheduled hearing days.
Statements made by arrested defendant more than six hours after arrest are inadmissible under Rosario rule when they result from police questioning, even if defendant initiates the conversation.
Defendant's motion to correct unlawfully imposed parole supervision triggered restructuring of his entire sentencing scheme without violating double jeopardy, provided probation revocation penalties did not exceed remaining original sentence time.
Defendant stipulated orally that substance was cocaine. Jury learned of stipulation only during judge's final instructions. Court held stipulation relieves Commonwealth of proving element beyond introduction of stipulation itself.
Conviction affirmed where defendant stipulated to all elements of firearm and drug charges; admission of unchallenged certificates harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
Physician's conviction for unlawful drug distribution affirmed. Judge's jury instructions used "dispensing" language but tracked distribution elements; jury convicted defendant of distribution despite instructional terminology.
Murder conviction vacated; involuntary manslaughter instruction should have been given where defendant fired at darkened window and may not have known it was occupied.
Contempt order in supplementary process affirmed; superintendence review unavailable where petitioner not incarcerated and statute bars appeals.
Defendant's petition under G.L. c. 211, § 3 denied where he failed to comply with appellate rule requiring memorandum explaining why adequate review unavailable post-trial.