Com. v. Bennett
| Decision Date | 23 January 1978 |
| Citation | 6 Mass.App.Ct. 832,372 N.E.2d 271 |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Edward Berkin, Roxbury (Peter Wolk with him), for defendant.
James M. Lynch, Special Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before HALE, C. J., and ARMSTRONG and BROWN, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
1. Although there was ample evidence from which the jury could have found the defendant guilty of rape and kidnapping, it was error for the judge to restrict defense counsel's closing argument. See United States v. DeLoach, 164 U.S.App.D.C. 116, 120-122, 504 F.2d 185, 189-191 (1974), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 909, 96 S.Ct. 2232, 48 L.Ed.2d 834 (1976). There was testimony (albeit hearsay) admitted in evidence without objection which could have formed a basis for the hypothesis defense counsel attempted to argue to the jury. Compare Commonwealth v. Pettie, 363 Mass. 836, 840, 298 N.E.2d 836 (1973); Commonwealth v. Montecalvo, 367 Mass. 46, 56-57, 323 N.E.2d 888 (1975). The testimony was relevant, and argument concerning it was essential to the defense (see United States v. Sawyer, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 443 F.2d 712 (1971)) to explain and rebut evidence the Commonwealth had presented in its case in chief that the defendant had committed the offenses alleged in the respective indictments. Contrast Commonwealth v. McCann, 97 Mass. 580, 582 (1867). Accordingly, the defendant must be given a new trial. 2. This disposition makes it unnecessary to consider the defendant's remaining assignments of error which are based on exceptions (see Commonwealth v. Underwood, 358 Mass. 506, 509, 265 N.E.2d 577 (1970)) and have been argued on appeal (see Commonwealth v. MacMillan, --- Mass.App. ---, --- a, 362 N.E.2d 929 (1977)).
Judgment reversed.
Verdict set aside.
a. Mass.App.Adv.Sh. (1977) 540, 548.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barton
...from the record." Id. at 190-91; see also Ohio v. Pinkney, 36 Ohio St.3d 190, 522 N.E.2d 555, 558 (1988); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 6 Mass.App.Ct. 832, 372 N.E.2d 271, 271-72 (1978). The common thread running through all of these cases is that defense counsel has the right to make any argume......
-
Com. v. Cutty
...restriction did not wholly foreclose a summation--requires that the judgment of conviction be reversed. See Commonwealth v. Bennett, 6 Mass.App.Ct. 832, 372 N.E.2d 271 (1978). The judge's circumscription of defense counsel's closing was especially prejudicial in this case for two related re......
-
Com. v. Johnson
...v. Martelli, 38 Mass.App.Ct. 669, 671-672, 651 N.E.2d 414 (1995), or was improperly limited in its scope. Commonwealth v. Bennett, 6 Mass.App.Ct. 832, 372 N.E.2d 271 (1978). The judge did not abuse his discretion in limiting closing arguments to twenty minutes or in denying defendant's moti......
-
Com. v. Mahar
...v. Haas, --- Mass. ---, --- - --- n. 11 a, 369 N.E.2d 692 (1977). Cases such as Commonwealth v. Bennett, --- Mass.App. --- b, 372 N.E.2d 271 (1978), and United States v. Deloach, 164 U.S.App.D.C. 116, 504 F.2d 185 (1974), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 909, 96 S.Ct. 2232, 48 L.Ed.2d 834 (1976), are......