Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Citation
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Parent Document
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2019-01-25
Other Sections in This Document (13)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
- Commonwealth v. Alves, 122 N.E.3d 1101 (2019)
Full Text
587 charsDiscussion. The Commonwealth argues that the judge erred by allowing the motion to suppress without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Commonwealth asserts it was prepared to go forward with two witnesses: two police officers who would testify that the landlord gave them permission to search the premises. As the Commonwealth notes in its brief, hearsay evidence is admissible in suppression hearings, see Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 166, 168 n.2 (2001), and, therefore, the judge should not have allowed the motion based simply on the absence of the landlord.