Summary
In Hickson, counsel did not argue in his brief that the statute was broadened in an ex post facto manner violative of the Due Process Clause. The void-for-vagueness theory was briefed.
Summary of this case from United States ex Rel. Hardenman v. WellsOpinion
February 14, 1974.
William A. Nelson John F. Palmer for the defendant submitted a brief.
This case was entered and the defendant's brief filed prior to the decision of Commonwealth v. Hughes, 364 Mass. 426 (1973). The case is governed in every respect by that decision.
Exceptions overruled.