Opinion

Commonwealth v. Samaras

10 Mass. App. Ct. 910 · Massachusetts Appeals Court · Oct 8, 1980

Full text

Commonwealth v. Arthur Samaras

There was sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to find that the defendant had more than momentary possession of his gun and was “carrying” a firearm within the meaning of G. L. c. 269, § 10(a), and that the violation, which occurred on the sidewalk in front of the defendant’s house, took place in a location not within the exclusive control of the defendant. Commonwealth v. Seay, 376 Mass. 735, 742-743 (1978). Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 377 Mass. 453, 459-460 (1979). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either answered by Commonwealth v. Jones, 372 Mass. 403 (1977), or are without merit. Judgment affirmed.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 6582610

Citations

10 Mass. App. Ct. 910
1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1355
410 N.E.2d 743

Cited by

Commonwealth v. Coren
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Sep 10, 2002
Commonwealth v. Moore
Massachusetts Appeals Court · Mar 28, 2002
Commonwealth v. Ashley
Massachusetts Appeals Court · Sep 2, 1983

Parentheticals

possession of gun on sidewalk in front of house sufficient for purposes of G. L. c. 269, § 10 [a]
Commonwealth v. Coren
violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10, which occurred on sidewalk in front of defendant’s house, took place in location not within defendant’s exclusive control
Commonwealth v. Moore
weapon found in defendant’s back pocket as he stood in front of his house, from which he had walked on the way to his car
Commonwealth v. Ashley