# Commonwealth v. Rivera

> Massachusetts Appeals Court · August 20, 2001 · 52 Mass. App. Ct. 321

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6461130

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Angel Rivera
- **Court:** Massachusetts Appeals Court
- **Decided:** August 20, 2001
- **Citations:** 52 Mass. App. Ct. 321; 753 N.E.2d 823; 2001 Mass. App. LEXIS 856
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Duffly
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6461130

## Opinion text

Brown, J.
(concurring). Although I still adhere to the views set out in my dissent in Commonwealth v. Dowdy, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 495, 501-503 (1994) (Brown, J., dissenting), I concur, albeit reluctantly, only because I am “substantially confident that, if the [unbridled comments] had not been made, the jury verdict would have been the same.” Commonwealth v. Cyr, 433 Mass. 617, 626 (2001) (citation omitted).
The instant case pushes the outer limits of what this court found permissible in Commonwealth v. Krepon, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 945, 946 (1992). I repeat my usual refrain: It is long past time for attorneys, both defense and prosecution, to have to be reminded not to stray recklessly outside the bounds of proper argument. In this regard, see Commonwealth v. Redmond, 370 Mass. 591, 597 (1976), where twenty-five years ago the court reversed and admonished a “prosecutor [who] repeatedly and deliberately sailed unnecessarily close to the wind.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6461130. Public record. Not legal advice.