the Commonwealth must have put forward some evidence before the grand jury to establish “probable cause,” Commonwealth v. O’Dell, supra, to believe that the defendant, in taking or holding G.G., acted “without lawful authority.” In the context of a parental kidnapping charge, the Commonwealth can prove that an individual lacks lawful authority over his child in a number of ways — by operation of a range of statutes or by court order. Where an element of a crime can be proved “in any one of several ways,” and “an indictment properly charges its commission in all those ways,” the defendant “should be convicted if it is proved that he committed the crime in any of those ways.” Commonwealth v. Dowe, 315 Mass. 217, 219-220 (1943). See Commonwealth v. Cheremond, 461 Mass. 397, 405 (2012) (<HOLDING>). Because he has been charged with parental
holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill holding that conspiracy to commit murder is not lesserincluded offense of firstdegree murder holding premeditated murder and felony murder are the same crime with various means of commission holding that states pretrial amendment of the original indictment charging defendant with willful and deliberate first degree murder to add an alternative murder theory of depraved mind murder did not add a different offense and therefore did not prejudice the defendant holding that indictment for murder in the first degree charges murder by whatever means it may have been committed regardless of the theory of murder presented to the grand jury