Commonwealth v. Pope
Commonwealth v. Randy Pope
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Assuming, without deciding, that it was improper for the District Court judge to allow the prosecutor’s motion to amend the complaint at the close of the evidence, the error was rendered immaterial by the appeal from the District Court judgment to the Superior Court. Commonwealth v. Calhane, 108 Mass. 431, 432 (1871). Commonwealth v. Sheehan, 108 Mass. 432 , note (1871). Commonwealth v. Harvey, 111 Mass. 420, 421 (1873). Commonwealth v. Holmes, 119 Mass. 195, 199 (1875). Commonwealth v. Fredericks, 119 Mass. 199, 205 (1875). Commonwealth v. Burke, 121 Mass. 39, 40 (1876). Commonwealth v. Whalen, 147 Mass. 376, 378 (1888). Commonwealth v. Oakes, 151 Mass. 394, 395 (1890). See Commonwealth v. Dunham, 22 Pick. 11 , 12 (1839); Mann v. Commonwealth, 359 Mass. 661, 666 (1971). Those cases are still good law. Enbinder v. Commonwealth, 368 Mass. 214, 218 (1975). They control this case. Contrast Whitmarsh v. Commonwealth, 366 Mass. 212, 215-216 (1974), app. dism. 421 U. S. 957 (1975). The defendant’s remaining assignments of error, not having been argued, are not considered.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.