8 results for 'judge:"Ditkoff"'.
J. Ditkoff affirms the defendant’s conviction of possession of fentanyl. Search warrants authorizing searches of any person present include people who remain in the vicinity of the property the search warrant is authorized for, even if they have left the property itself, as long as they were on the property during the execution of the warrant. Affirmed.
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Ditkoff, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 23-P-250, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Drug Offender, Search
J. Ditkoff determines it was an error not to instruct the jury in self-defense, and vacates the conviction of a man for assault and battery. The man had pushed his ex-girlfriend away after she hit him with a dog leash and came at him with a broken beer bottle; this happened after he allegedly had knocked her to the ground and strangled her. Vacated.
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Ditkoff, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: 22-P-1036, Categories: Assault, Battery, Self Defense
J. Ditkoff reverses a judgment dismissing a bus driver’s complaint against his employer and a man who fell unconscious behind the wheel and rear-ended his bus. A medical expert testified that the man and his employer should have been aware of his excessive sleepiness and the danger it posed for him to operate a vehicle based on his untreated sleep apnea even if they weren’t aware of his sleep apnea because it is not an acute condition. While the man claimed he had no memory of lethargy leading up to the accident, he also claimed he had no memory at all of the weeks leading up to the accident, so it’s possible he had experienced excessive sleepiness while driving in that time.
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Ditkoff, Filed On: October 18, 2023, Case #: 21-P-740, Categories: Vehicle, Damages, Negligence
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Ditkoff finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Sufficient evidence exists to support the conviction, including damage to defendant's vehicle, an officer's informed opinion that defendant crossed the double yellow lines and collided with a telephone pole and two mailboxes on the opposite side of the road, and defendant's admission of unfamiliarity with the area where he was driving. Affirmed.
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Ditkoff, Filed On: September 15, 2023, Case #: 22-P-631, Categories: Vehicle, Negligence