¶1(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the majority’s lucid, compendiously documented, and manifestly desirable restatement of the meaning of malice as an element of murder. In view, however, of the intentional attack on Sullivan and DiRenzo’s boast that “he felt his hand smash through [Sullivan’s] skull,” it strikes me as unrealistic to suppose that the jury would have descended below the second prong of malice, namely, that DiRenzo intended to cause Sullivan grievous bodily injury. I would, therefore, affirm the judgments of conviction as to DiRenzo. I concur with the majority as to Uminski.
44 Mass. App. Ct. 95
Commonwealth v. DiRenzo
Decided December 24, 1997
Massachusetts Appeals Court · decided 1997-12-24
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1997-12-24
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2018
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →