Commonwealth v. Hosman

2 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. McGovern

    397 Mass. 863 (Mass. 1986)   Cited 108 times
    Finding sufficient evidence that “the defendant's destructive acts ... were hostile to the owner of the [property]”

    It is immaterial whether the defendant knew the identity of the owner of the property. Commonwealth v. Peruzzi, supra at 442 n. 4. See Commonwealth v. Hosman, 257 Mass. 379, 384-385 (1926). The evidence clearly warranted the judge in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's destructive acts were by design and were hostile to the owner of the booth.

  2. Commonwealth v. Tracy

    27 Mass. App. Ct. 455 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding common experience of jurors insufficient to establish that value of firearm exceeded one hundred dollars

    In addition, the judge in his charge did not instruct the jury that they had to find that the gun's value was in excess of one hundred dollars. We do not consider that the common experience of jurors enables them to assess the value of a gun, compare Commonwealth v. Hosman, 257 Mass. 379, 386 (1926), and Tracy did not admit that its value exceeded $100. Compare Commonwealth v. Camelio, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 296, 302 (1973). The value of the property stolen determines the punishable offense under G.L.c. 266, § 60. Even in the absence of a request, the jury must be instructed on this point.