The short answer is that the second draft of the Massachusetts Constitution, which was adopted in 1780, states “that the people . . . form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state by the name of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”  At that point, Massachusetts legally became a commonwealth.

The longer answer is more interesting.  The word “commonwealth” started life in 15th century England, when the word “wealth” included the meaning “weal” or “well-being.”  To speak of  “the commonwealth” in those days was to invoke the abstract idea of a common or general good.  By the late 18th century, however, the word “commonwealth” had become somewhat radical and cool, because it was associated with the idea of political power being rooted in the people rather than the king.   A “commonwealth” was a state in which the common good was associated with common power.   A “commonwealth” was understood by educated people as a republic, or as any political entity in which sovereignty belonged to the people.

Massachusetts adopted the designation of commonwealth in 1780 to underscore that it was now a self-governing republic with no allegiance to the king.

Spousal privilege has limits.  It does not exist in matters involving nonsupport, desertion, neglect of parental duty, or child abuse.  Spousal privilege does not apply to civil matters.

Spousal privilege is sometimes confused with spousal disqualification, which is recognized in both criminal and civil proceedings. Spousal disqualification prevents one spouse from testifying about private conversations with the other spouse that occurred during their marriage.  Spousal disqualification also has limits.  It does not apply to matters involving:

a) a contract dispute between spouses;
b) the establishment of paternity or the modification or enforcement of a support order;
c) nonsupport, desertion, or neglect of parental duty;
d) allegations of child abuse;
e) a spouse who is charged with a crime against the other spouse;
f)  restraining order violations;
g) a deceased spouse’s declaration;
h) criminal proceedings in which the private conversation reveals a bias or motive on the
part of the spouse who is testifying against the other spouse

As to common law marriage.

Many couples believe that they are “common law married” simply because they have cohabited for a period of time.  However, you cannot enter into a common law marriage in Massachusetts. Because Massachusetts does not recognize such arrangements as marriages, marital privilege does not apply.  One member of the couple can be compelled to testify against the other.

Massachusetts does recognize common law marriages that were legally created and recognized in a state that permits such marriages. Those states are Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (only after the death of one spouse), Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

Therefore, if a couple has a legally valid, recognized, common law marriage in Alabama, and then moves to Massachusetts, Massachusetts will recognize that couple as legally married. In such cases marital privilege and marital disqualification would apply.

Historically, counties ran the jails and the Commonwealth ran the prisons.  This is no longer always so, because several Massachusetts county governments no longer exist.  The Commonwealth now performs their functions, including jail keeping.  However, each county still elects its own sheriff to be its jail’s chief officer.

There are images predating 1694 of legal officials wearing simple black:

Henry Rolle, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench (1668 engraving by A. Hertochs)

There are also late 18th century portraits of US judges wearing red and black:

Gilbert Stuart’s portrait of John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1794

Clearly black robes were “in the mix” so to speak before Queen Mary II died.  It is possible, however, that the official mourning period coupled with Britain’s rapidly increasing colonization gave impetus to what was already an existing theme.

After the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson and others favored eliminating judicial robes, because their association with the British aristocracy offended egalitarian sensibilities. Jefferson thought judges should wear suits like other citizens, which is funny when you realize that robes probably evolved from tunics, which were originally the dress of common people if you go back far enough.   John Adams wanted to keep the distinction of special judicial attire, including the striking red robes and white wigs favored in the British courts.  Adams was a lawyer, by the way.  British judges were wearing red in the late 18^th century, nearly a century after the death of Queen Mary II, which also calls into question the degree to which the black robe tradition started with her death.  The founders’ compromise was to forgo the white wigs and keep the robes, although it isn’t clear that black was necessarily the preferred color at this time (see John Jay portrait).  Further decisions regarding judicial dress were reserved to the states.   By the 19^th century nearly all US judges wore simple black robes, as they still do today.  Some people consider black to represent neutrality.

When it is a bottle of wine that is:

a) purchased, along with a meal, by a restaurant or hotel patron
b) partially consumed by that same patron
c) resealed by the restaurant or hotel, and
d) transported outside of the passenger area of a car

Under Massachusetts law, it is illegal to have any kind of open or unsealed bottle, can, or other receptacle containing an alcoholic beverage in the passenger area of a car.  This prohibition includes partially-consumed bottles of wine resealed by restaurants, which is why you might have heard they are illegal.  However, under the open container statute, which you can read at M.G.L. ch. 90 § 24I, a car’s passenger area does not include the trunk or a locked glove compartment.  So you may legally transport in your trunk a partially-consumed bottle of wine that was resealed by the restaurant you purchased it from to complement your dinner.  Transporting that same resealed wine bottle in your car’s passenger area carries a $100 – $500 fine, just like any other open container containing an alcoholic beverage.

Under the statute, you may not tint any of your car windows if the tinting results in your windows being nontransparent or obscured from either the inside or the outside of your car.  A conviction carries a $250 fine. A third or subsequent conviction carries a 90 day license suspension.

However, the statute provides several exceptions.  You may use tinting on the side windows if the tinting does not reflect more than 35% of visible light or if it transmits at least 35% of visible light.  The same percentages apply to the rear window, but only if your car is equipped with an outside mirror on each side that clearly shows your rear view.  It is also acceptable to use any transparent material along the upper 6 inches of the windshield, if the strip does not impede the driver’s forward viewing area.

Vehicles registered outside Massachusetts are exempt.  Vehicles that are registered and hired as public livery vehicles (but not taxicabs) may tint the side windows immediately to the rear of the operator and front passenger seat as well as the rear window.  It is also possible for individuals who are light or photo sensitive to get a medical exemption.

The District of Maine was part of Massachusetts until 1820, when Maine became the 23d state as part of the Missouri Compromise.  The new free northern state of Maine and the new slave state of Missouri (the 24th state) were approved by Congress to keep the US Senate balanced between pro and anti-slavery interests.  The people of Maine had wanted to separate from Massachusetts since the American Revolution.  Just as Bostonians had resented rule from London, Mainers resented rule from Boston.   Resentment peaked during the War of 1812, because Massachusetts failed to protect the Maine coast from British raids.  Also, Mainers felt they were not getting fair representation in the Massachusetts legislature and that Massachusetts was imposing unfair, heavy-handed taxation on them.  Sound familiar?

The upshot was that the people of the District of Maine wrote their own constitution and affected a bloodless revolution against Massachusetts by getting their statehood approved.  Maine continued to rely on Massachusetts common law, that is, the rulings of Massachusetts judges on individual cases.  So in a sense, Maine law originally evolved from Massachusetts legal decisions (which in turn had their roots in English common law).

As to whether the laws are still “close” after nearly two centuries of separate jurisprudence, I have no idea.  I don’t practice in Maine.  If you have questions about Maine law, ask a Maine attorney.

Possession of more than an ounce of marijuana is still a criminal offense, and can be punished by up to 6 months in jail and a $500 fine.   It is also still a criminal offense to distribute marijuana in any amount.  A first conviction for distributing marijuana carries a jail sentence of up to 2 years and a $500 – $5000 fine.   Subsequent convictions carry a mandatory minimum jail sentence of one year with a maximum of 2 ½ years, and a $1000 – $10,000 fine.