Com. v. Dunn

• Decision Date: 16 May 1978
• Citation: 375 N.E.2d 1230,6 Mass. App. Ct. 881
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Francis E. DUNN.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 1230

375 N.E.2d 1230

6 Mass.App.Ct. 881

COMMONWEALTH v. Francis E. DUNN.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts,Middlesex.

Argued May 8, 1978.

Decided May 16, 1978.

J. Russell Hodgdon, Boston, for defendant.

John J. Droney, Dist. Atty. and James W. Sahakian, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

Before HALE, C. J., and GRANT and ARMSTRONG, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

The sole ground of the motion for a new trial was one which 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. --- ^a, 323 N.E.2d 751, 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, 303 N.E.2d 338 (1973). Commonwealth v. Cresta, --- Mass.App. --- ^b, 373 N.E.2d 1200. If we were required to consider the question, we would conclude that it is devoid of merit.

Exceptions overruled.

a. Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1975) 237.

b. Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1978) 184.