Commonwealth v. Humphries’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We sum up the established interpretation of G. L. c. 278, § 7, as it applies to prosecutions under G. L. c. 269, § 10 [ a ]. The holding of a valid license brings the defendant within an exception to the general prohibition against carrying a firearm, and is an affirmative defense. Absence of a license is not 'an element of the crime,' as that phrase is commonly used. In the absence of evidence with respect to a license, no issue is presented with respect to licensing. In other words, the burden is on the defendant to come forward with evidence of the defense. If such evidence is presented, however, the burden is on the prosecution to persuade the trier of facts beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not exist”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 93 Mass. App. Ct. 717 - Commonwealth v. Grafton

2. “[A] defendant charged with a possessory firearms offense can raise the defendant's own license as a defense. See Commonwealth v. Gouse , 461 Mass. 787 , 802-803, 965 N.E.2d 774 (2012) ..., and cases cited. Such a defendant must, prior to trial, provide notice of intent to raise the defense of license, see Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(b)(3), and must produce 'some evidence' of license at trial before the burden shifts to the Commonwealth to prove the absence of the defendant's license beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 93 Mass. App. Ct. 717 - Commonwealth v. Grafton

3. “The Commonwealth's burden to prove that a weapon is a 'firearm' in the statutory sense ... requires only that the Commonwealth present some competent evidence from which the jury reasonably can draw inferences that the weapon will fire, ... and that it is under a certain length.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 92 Mass. App. Ct. 1110 - Commonwealth v. Mayes