TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Commonwealth v. Vinnicombe

Commonwealth v. Dale Vinnicombe

Commonwealth v. Vinnicombe, 549 N.E.2d 1137 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Appeals Court · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 13, 1990
Docket
No. 89-P-812
Citations
549 N.E.2d 113728 Mass. App. Ct. 9341990 Mass. App. LEXIS 89

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Charged with breaking and entering a dwelling house in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony (common law burglary) and making an assault on a person lawfully therein (G. L. c. 266, § 14), the defendant *935 was convicted by a jury of simply “breaking and entering.” 1 In the lexicon of Massachusetts crimes there is no such crime as “breaking and entering” unaccompanied by intent to commit a felony or a misdemeanor. See G. L. c. 266, §§ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, & 20A. There is such a thing as criminal trespass. It consists of entry of, or remaining in, a dwelling house (among other places) without right after having been forbidden so to do. G. L. c. 266, § 120. See Commonwealth v. Richardson, 313 Mass. 632, 637 (1943). That crime, however, was not charged. The defendant is entitled to have the verdict set aside and judgment entered in his favor.

The defendant conceded that he had made an unpermitted entry but denied intent to do anything other than talk to the victim, to whom he appears to have been in the habit of pouring out his heart. Against the possibility that the jury might not have been persuaded that an assault had occurred, the Commonwealth had suggested that the judge instruct the jury that they might find the lesser included offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, i.e., that some sort of felony was intended but not carried out. Instead the judge charged the jury that it might find a break and entry had occurred but “not done by the defendant with any specific intent to commit a felony upon any person located therein.” Further into his instructions the judge told the jury “the lesser included offense is just the straight breaking and entering without the intent, if you find that is what occurred in this particular matter.” With the ground, thus, erroneously laid, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of “[ljesser included offense as follows: breaking & entering.”

It is not appropriate to translate the jury’s finding into a finding of guilty of criminal trespass, which contains elements which need not be found for breaking and entry with intent to commit a felony, notably entering or remaining after having been forbidden so to do. Commonwealth v. Anolik, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 701, 712 (1989). See Kuklis v. Commonwealth, 361 Mass. 302, 306-308 (1972). As to the distinctions between breaking and entry with intent to commit a felony and criminal trespass, see Nolan & Henry, Criminal Law § 410 (2d ed. 1988). A person shall not be made to answer in the Commonwealth for an offense not charged. See Commonwealth v. Grasso, 375 Mass. 138, 139 (1978); Commonwealth v. Clark, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 673, 677 (1977); art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

As the defendant has not been placed in jeopardy on a charge of trespass, the Commonwealth is free to press a complaint of that crime. Cf. Commonwealth v. Burns, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 194 , 198 n.2 (1979).

Judgment reversed.

Verdict set aside.

Judgment to be entered for the defendant.

Carlo Obligato, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Sean J. Gallagher, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

he jury acquitted the defendant on indictments of assault with intent to rape and indecent assault and battery upon a person over the age of fourteeen.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1993: 11994: 11996: 11997: 12002: 12008: 12012: 219932026peak 2012 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Commonwealth v. Scott885 N.E.2d 133 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008)
  2. Rogan v. Commonwealth613 N.E.2d 920 (Mass. 1993)
  3. Commonwealth v. Wellard53 Mass. App. Ct. 650 (2002)
  4. Commonwealth v. Nadal-Ginard674 N.E.2d 645 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997)
  5. Parreira v. Commonwealth971 N.E.2d 242 (Mass. 2012)
  6. Commonwealth v. Walter661 N.E.2d 942 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996)

Most recent

  1. Parreira v. Commonwealth971 N.E.2d 242 (Mass. 2012)
  2. Commonwealth v. Greene964 N.E.2d 982 (Mass. 2012)
  3. Commonwealth v. Scott885 N.E.2d 133 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008)
  4. Commonwealth v. Wellard53 Mass. App. Ct. 650 (2002)
  5. Commonwealth v. Nadal-Ginard674 N.E.2d 645 (Mass. App. Ct. 1997)
  6. Commonwealth v. Walter661 N.E.2d 942 (Mass. App. Ct. 1996)

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.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Kuklis v. Commonwealth, 280 N.E.2d 155 (Mass. 1972) 111
Commonwealth v. Grasso, 375 N.E.2d 708 (Mass. 1978) 36
Commonwealth v. Richardson, 48 N.E.2d 678 (Mass. 1943) 34
Commonwealth v. Burns, 392 N.E.2d 865 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979) 33
Commonwealth v. Clark, 369 N.E.2d 468 (Mass. App. Ct. 1977) 22
Commonwealth v. Anolik, 542 N.E.2d 327 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989) 15

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list