Commonwealth v. Harris

74 Mass. App. Ct. 105 (2009)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Commonwealth v. Harris

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
74 Mass. App. Ct. 105 (2009)

JL

Facts

Carlos Johnson met a 13-year-old girl, Jane Smith, on a telephone chat line. Johnson and Smith arranged to meet in person at Smith’s home. Johnson asked Daniel Harris (defendant) to drive Johnson and two other men to Smith’s house. Smith came out of the house and was initially prevented from leaving by her father. Smith then left from a different exit and got into the car. Harris drove them to a liquor store and bought alcohol. Johnson convinced Smith to drink from the liquor bottle and told her that they were going for a drive. Harris drove them to a motel. Johnson convinced Smith to go inside with them. Smith was too intoxicated to walk by herself and was helped inside. Johnson and the other two men took turns having sex with her as she drifted in and out of consciousness. According to Smith, Harris went inside the motel room, sometimes watching them, sometimes watching television. According to Harris, he dropped them off at the motel and left until Johnson called him to come back and get them. Harris then drove them back to Smith’s neighborhood. Smith was dropped off in the vicinity of her home and stumbled back. Smith was taken to the hospital and had a blood-alcohol level of .131. Harris was charged with statutory rape under a joint-venture theory of liability. Harris admitted that Smith looked young, but denied knowing that she was under 18. The jury convicted Harris, and he filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the prosecution did not prove that Harris knew Smith was underage. The trial court denied the motion, and Harris appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (McHugh, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership