Com. v. Brigham

• Decision Date: 17 October 1888
• Citation: Com. v. Brigham, 147 Mass. 414, 18 N.E. 167 (Mass. 1888)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. BRIGHAM.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

147 Mass. 414

18 N.E. 167

COMMONWEALTH v. BRIGHAM.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 17, 1888

COUNSEL

A.J. Waterman, for the Commonwealth.

Charles R. Johnson, for defendant.

OPINION

DEVENS J.

The fact that a person has endeavored to avoid arrest, or to escape therefrom, is to be considered by the jury as bearing upon the question of his guilt, and is of greater or less weight as the time when or the circumstances under which it takes place may reveal, or fail to do so, an intention to evade justice, Best, Ev. 249.In the case at bar it would be for the jury to say whether defendant was not acquainted with the charge made against him when he was arrested upon the capias issued by the court, especially in view of the fact that he had recognized to appear before the court to answer for the same offense, and that a previous indictment, although in a different form, had been found against him; and this, even if it did not distinctly appear that the officers at the time informed him of the nature of the indictment.Nor was it without relevancy that the defendant was found an hour or two after his escape in the company of the person with whom the offense charged was alleged to have been committed, and that he then again ran away.

In determining whether this latter person was rightly named in the indictment, it was competent to show to what name she had answered, and how she had permitted herself to be called.It was therefore competent to show that she herself had pleaded to a complaint in the district court, in which she had been described by the same name as that given to her in the indictment.Even if she might, if so disposed, have pleaded to a complaint in...