Commonwealth v. Dunn
Commonwealth v. Francis E. Dunn
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The sole ground of the motion for a new trial was one winch concededly could have been assigned as error and argued when the defendant appealed from the convictions which were affirmed in Commonwealth v. Dunn, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 708 , further appellate review denied, 367 Mass. 912 (1975). Accordingly, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in simply denying the motion without a hearing and without ruling on the question sought to be raised by the motion. Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 364 Mass. 211, 229-231 (1973). Commonwealth v. Cresta, ante 855 (1978). If we were required to consider the question, we would conclude that it is devoid of merit.
Exceptions overruled.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.