Commonwealth v. McKoy (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-029-13)
Police stop upheld where officers drew firearms after receiving report of nearby shooting and encountering two men in immediate vicinity during harsh weather.
Commonwealth
Azubuko v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-029-13)
Pro se interlocutory appeal by represented defendant denied; party with counsel cannot ordinarily challenge trial rulings pro se absent extraordinary circumstances.
Cousineau v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-030-13)
Defendant cannot appeal single justice's denial of interlocutory appeal application; remedy is to raise suppression issue on direct appeal after conviction.
Commonwealth v. Castillo (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-028-13)
Affirmed discovery order requiring Commonwealth to disclose follow-up medical visit information in its possession regarding sexual assault victims.
Commonwealth v. Jones (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-027-13)
Pat frisk justified when suspect's affirmative answer to question about carrying harmful objects creates objective safety basis. Second Amendment does not preclude firearms licensing requirements.
Commonwealth v. Mgaresh (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-023-13)
Defendant convicted of cocaine distribution in school zone. Court affirmed, holding evidence sufficient under constructive possession or joint venture theory despite missing jury instruction.
Commonwealth v. Harris (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-026-13)
Murder conviction affirmed. Self-defense instruction proper despite general language on provocation. 911 recording and prosecutor's use thereof admissible.
Commonwealth v. Walker (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-024-13)
Sexually dangerous person commitment affirmed where exhibitionist with history of contact offenses posed menace to health and safety.
Commonwealth v. Kelsey (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-018-13)
Probationer denied disclosure of confidential informant's identity before revocation hearing. Court held disclosure may be required where informant is sole nongovernmental witness and active participant in alleged offense.
Commonwealth v. Figueroa (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-023-13)
Parole officer investigation into potential parole violations qualifies as criminal proceeding under witness tampering statute protecting parole officers and those with information about violations.