Commonwealth v. Costa

29 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Mubdi

    456 Mass. 385 (Mass. 2010)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recording of police dispatch played at hearing

    An evidentiary hearing is necessary only when the defendant has alleged facts that, if true, would establish (1) that evidence was obtained through a search or seizure for which the Commonwealth must prove probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or consent to search; and (2) that the defendant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search or seizure. Cf. Commonwealth v. Costa, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 227, 228 n.l (2005). Second, the affidavit required under rule 13 (a) (2) must be sufficiently detailed to give fair notice to the prosecution of the particular search or seizure that the defendant is challenging, so that the prosecution may determine which witnesses it should call and what evidence it should offer to meet its burden of proving probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or consent.

  2. Commonwealth v. Carr

    76 Mass. App. Ct. 41 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 4 times

    2. Discussion. "[W]e accept the judge's subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error 'but conduct an independent review of [her] ultimate findings and conclusions of law.'"Commonwealth v. Costa, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 227, 229-230 (2005), quoting from Commonwealth v. Scott, 440 Mass. 642, 646 (2004). "[0]ur duty is to make an independent determination of the correctness of the judge's application of constitutional principles to the facts as found."

  3. Commonwealth v. Wallace

    70 Mass. App. Ct. 757 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that pornographic magazines and photographs of nude adult men and women engaged in sexual activity found in defendant's possession were properly admitted to establish defendant's voyeuristic interest in sexual matters but lubricant, knife, rope, and duct tape were erroneously admitted in evidence; there was no prejudice from erroneous admission

    See 4 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 8.2(j), at 116-117 (4th ed. 2004)." Commonwealth v. Costa, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 227, 233 n. 8 (2005) After an interval of about ten minutes, during which there was no conversation between the defendant and York or Hall, York informed the defendant that his vehicle was at the police station and asked the defendant if he would consent to a search of his vehicle.

  4. Commonwealth v. Colon

    482 Mass. 162 (Mass. 2019)   Cited 36 times
    In Commonwealth v. Colon, 482 Mass. 162, 121 N.E.3d 1157 (2019), which was decided after the trial in this case, we recognized the pervasiveness of ethnic, as well as racial, biases.

    Commonwealth v. Pina, 406 Mass. 540, 542, 549 N.E.2d 106, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 832, 111 S.Ct. 96, 112 L.Ed.2d 67 (1990). As the motion judge noted, quoting Commonwealth v. Costa, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 227, 231-232, 838 N.E.2d 592 (2005), "[a] Miranda-like warning is not a necessary prerequisite to a valid consent [to search] under the Fourth Amendment [to the United States Constitution] or under art. 14 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights]." Even if the question of voluntariness were to be considered, there was no error.

  5. Commonwealth v. Rivas

    466 Mass. 184 (Mass. 2013)   Cited 24 times

    Commonwealth v. Bennett, 424 Mass. 64, 69–70, 674 N.E.2d 237 (1997), citing Commonwealth v. Crocker, 384 Mass. 353, 358 n. 6, 424 N.E.2d 524 (1981). See Commonwealth v. Johnson, supra at 54, 958 N.E.2d 25;Commonwealth v. Hoilett, 430 Mass. 369, 376, 719 N.E.2d 488 (1999), quoting Commonwealth v. Mello, 420 Mass. 375, 398, 649 N.E.2d 1106 (1995); Commonwealth v. Costa, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 227, 235, 838 N.E.2d 592 (2005), quoting Commonwealth v. Valliere, 437 Mass. 366, 371–372, 772 N.E.2d 27 (2002). In such cases, where an appellate court has vacated the lesser included offense (and its lesser punishment) without remand, the decision has had little effect on the sentencing scheme devised by the trial judge.

  6. Commonwealth v. Santos

    465 Mass. 689 (Mass. 2013)   Cited 32 times
    Affirming convictions on direct appeal

    The defendant concedes that Miranda warnings are not required in these specific circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Costa, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 227, 231–232, 838 N.E.2d 592 (2005). Nonetheless, he argues that without Miranda warnings he was not aware that he could withhold his consent.

  7. Commonwealth v. Scott

    10-P-1024 (Mass. May. 16, 2012)

    'No reasonable view of the evidence would permit the jury to find' that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent, but not by force. Commonwealth v. Costa, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 227, 235 (2005). On assault with intent to rape, the judge sufficiently conveyed the element of specific intent.

  8. Commonwealth v. Johnson

    461 Mass. 44 (Mass. 2011)   Cited 108 times
    Concluding that G. L. c. 269, § 10 [h ], which criminalizes unlawful possession of ammunition and does not explicitly include mens rea requirement, contains implicit knowledge requirement

    Contrast G.L. c. 269, § 10 ( a ) and ( n ) (conviction of unlawful possession of loaded firearm shall be further punished by sentence that shall begin from and after expiration of sentence for possession of firearm without license to carry); Commonwealth v. Alvarez, 413 Mass. 224, 231–232, 596 N.E.2d 325 (1992) (Legislature specifically authorized imposition of two consecutive sentences for violation of “school zone” statute and lesser included offense of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute). See Commonwealth v. Valliere, supra at 371–372, 772 N.E.2d 27; Commonwealth v. Costa, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 227, 235, 838 N.E.2d 592 (2005). Because the defendant's sentence for unlawful possession of ammunition under G.L. c. 269, § 10 ( h ), did not increase the amount of time that he would spend incarcerated, see note 9, supra, we need not remand this matter for resentencing.

  9. Commonwealth v. Simpson

    10-P-655 (Mass. Oct. 5, 2011)

    See Commonwealth v. Rosario, 422 Mass. 48, 56 (1996). As the Commonwealth further observes, a request for consent to search does not constitute 'interrogation,' and a suspect's grant of consent does not constitute a 'statement,' within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Costa, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 227, 233 & n.8 (2005). At oral argument counsel for the defendant acknowledged that the defendant's argument would require extending the Rosario rule to a setting in which it has not previously been applied; we decline the invitation.

  10. Commonwealth v. Soares

    No. 09-P-1001 (Mass. Aug. 8, 2011)

    Conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm under G. L. c. 269, § 10(a), constitutes a lesser included offense of a conviction under G. L. c. 269, § 10(m), for unlawful possession of a large capacity weapon. Commonwealth v. Costa, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 227, 235 (2005) ('The only difference between the two violations is the 'capacity' of the firearm'). The case is remanded to the trial judge to choose which count of the indictment to dismiss.