Burglary Lawyer Massachusetts Norfolk Possession Custody Charge
Commonwealth v. Pinto
Defendants were discovered walking near the scene of a recent burglary shortly after midnight with certain items in their possession that were later identified as having been taken from the burglarized residence. One of the defendants attempted to cast aside a box of cigars that were later identified as having belonged to a victim of the burglary. Defendants, having given unsatisfactory explanations regarding their possession of the items, were taken into custody and charged with burglary. They were convicted, and they filed exceptions, contending that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that defendants’ possession of the items stolen in the burglary afforded presumptive evidence of their guilt where unsatisfactory accounts were given as to their possession.
If you are facing a criminal case in Norfolk, Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747.
The Massachusetts Court made the following holding:
- Any evidence which tends to show that defendants are guilty of a theft, tends also to show that they are guilty of the burglary by means of which the theft was effected.
- The recalling of a government witness, during the progress of the defense, is a matter within the discretion of the court in directing the course of a trial.
- Possession of stolen property, under certain circumstances, gives rise to the presumption that the possessor is the person who took it from the house of the victim.
The Gilmore & SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your case.
A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
These summaries are provided by the Gilmore & Sris Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The Original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.