Commonwealth v. Porro

7 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Bailey

    100 Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021)

    Given that the defendant hit a parked vehicle and no evidence was presented that the owner of the vehicle was nearby, the defendant's statutory obligation was satisfied where this information was made known to the police at the scene. See Commonwealth v. Porro, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 676, 680 (2009), S.C. 458 Mass. 526 (2010), quoting Commonwealth v. Horsfall, 213 Mass. 232, 236 (1913) ("information must be provided to the victim, someone acting on the victim's behalf, a public officer, or another appropriate person ‘at or near the place and time of injury’ "). Cf. Commonwealth v. Donohue, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 91, 94 (1996) (where victim is dead or unconscious as result of accident, statute satisfied if defendant "stayed at the scene and provided the necessary information to any motorist or police officer who subsequently arrived at the scene or if she left to find a telephone and immediately called the police and gave the necessary information"). Testimony was presented that the Volvo was not registered and the defendant was cited for, among other things, operating an unregistered motor vehicle.

  2. Merlonghi v. U.S.

    620 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2010)   Cited 232 times
    Considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)

    Subsequently, Mr. Porro was indicted under the General Laws of Massachusetts on three counts: (1) aggravated assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon (an automobile) in violation of chapter 265, section 15A, (2) assault by means of a dangerous weapon (a handgun) in violation of chapter 265, section 15B(b), and (3) leaving the scene of an accident causing personal injury in violation of chapter 90, section 24(2) (a 1/2)(1). See Commonwealth v. Porro, 74 Mass.App.Ct. 676, 909 N.E.2d 1184, 1186-87 (2009), review granted in part, 455 Mass. 1106, 920 N.E.2d 43 (2009). Mr. Porro was tried before a jury on all three counts.

  3. Commonwealth v. Porro

    458 Mass. 526 (Mass. 2010)   Cited 160 times
    Reaffirming Santos in dicta and stating that "we do not require that a jury be unanimous as to which theory of assault forms the basis for their verdict"

    The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of conviction of leaving the scene of an accident causing personal injury, but reversed the judgment of conviction of assault by means of a dangerous weapon and set aside the verdict. Commonwealth v. Porro, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 676, 684-685 (2009). The court held that, because there was evidence at trial of more than one swerve of the defendant's vehicle and the judge had refused to instruct the jury that the indictment charged only the final swerve that resulted in the victim's injury, there remained "a substantial risk that the defendant was convicted of a crime for which he was not indicted by a grand jury."

  4. Commonwealth v. Porro

    455 Mass. 1106 (Mass. 2009)

    December 18, 2009 Reported below: 74 Mass. App. Ct. 676 (2009). Review is limited to the issue whether the defendant can be retried for assault.

  5. Commonwealth v. Scafuri

    No. 19-P-1578 (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 19, 2020)

    To prove the offense of leaving the scene of a personal injury, the Commonwealth was required to establish that (1) the defendant operated a motor vehicle, (2) on any way, (3) while operating the motor vehicle the defendant collided with or otherwise injured another person, (4) the defendant knew that she collided with or caused injury to another person, and (5) the defendant failed to stop and provide her name, address and motor vehicle registration. Commonwealth v. Porro, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 676, 679-680 (2009). The defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew that she had collided with or caused injury to another person.

  6. Commonwealth v. Matthews

    83 Mass. App. Ct. 1115 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013)

    Thus, because the defendant failed to “tender[ ] [the information] on the spot and immediately,” Commonwealth v. Horsfall, 213 Mass. 232, 236 (1913), we find no error in the judge's denial of the motion for a required finding. See Commonwealth v. Porro, 74 Mass.App.Ct. 676, 680 (2009) (as soon as motorist knew he collided with other motorist he was obligated to stop and provide required information). Judgments affirmed.

  7. Com. v. Pearson

    77 Mass. App. Ct. 95 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 7 times
    Noting that “neither the Superior Court nor the District Court has a model instruction for violations of [G.L. c. 266,] § 37B or § 37C ”

    Ibid., quoting Commonwealth v. Dean, 109 Mass. 349, 352 (1872). See Commonwealth v. Muniz, 456 Mass. 166, 174 (2010); Commonwealth v. Porro, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 676, 682, further appellate review granted, 455 Mass. 1106 (2009). The defendant argues that, as in Barbosa, there is a real possibility that he was convicted of a crime for which he was not indicted.