Com. v. Burns
| Decision Date | 24 October 1972 |
| Citation | 362 Mass. 875,289 N.E.2d 836 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. John BURNS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Mary C. Kingsley, Boston, for defendant.
Timothy J. Spillane, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before TAURO, C.J., and QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and HENNESSEY, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendant and Lawrence J. Jemmott were each convicted of the following crimes committed against Anthony M. Durham: (a) armed robbery, (b) entering a dwelling house while armed and assaulting an occupant with intent to rob him, and (c) assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. The defendant claims error in the denial of his motions for directed verdicts. The motions raise the question 'whether there was sufficient evidence of the defendant's guilt to warrant the submission of the cases to a jury.' Commonwealth v. Altenhaus, 317 Mass. 270, 271, 57 N.E.2d 921; Commonwealth v. Baron, 356 Mass. 362, 365, 252 N.E.2d 220; Commonwealth v. Perry, 357 Mass. 149, 151, 256 N.E.2d 745. We hold that the evidence which we summarize in its aspect most favorable to the Commonwealth was sufficient. On August 7, 1970, Durham went to the apartment of Lawrence J. and Donald Jemmott, brothers, to get some clothes belonging to his cousin. The defendant went with him. On their way there Durham told him he had no money. On their return the defendant saw Durham 'counting out a lot of money.' On the same date Durham, his wife and the defendant left on a three day trip to New York with Durham paying all of the expenses. On their return they learned that the Jemmott brothers were looking for Durham, claiming he had stolen clothes and $100 from their apartment. The defendant thereupon left the Durham apartment, went to the Jemmott apartment and took the two brothers back to the Durham apartment, and while doing so he told them of Durham's statement of August 7 that he had no money before going to the Jemmott apartment and of Durham counting money after leaving the apartment. At the Durham apartment the Jemmott brothers demanded the return of their money and an argument ensued during which Donald Jemmott threatened to kill Durham and in fact shot him twice. Mrs. Durham then gave the Jemmotts $12. Between the two shots the defendant told Durham in effect to give the Jemmotts their money if he took it. He did nothing to dissuade or prevent the Jemmotts from committing the crimes. The Jemmotts fled as the police officers were arriving. In answer to police questioning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Campbell
...in its light most favorable to the Commonwealth (Commonwealth v. Flynn, 362 Mass. 455, 479, 287 N.E.2d 420 (1972); Commonwealth v. Burns, 362 Mass. 875, 289 N.E.2d 836 (1972)) to decide whether there was sufficient evidence of the defendants' guilt to warrant the submission of the case to t......
-
Com. v. Harris
...in the commission of that offence." Commonwealth v. Benders, 361 Mass. 704, 708, 282 N.E.2d 405, 408 (1972). See Commonwealth v. Burns, 362 Mass. 875, 289 N.E.2d 836 (1972); Commonwealth v. Blow, 370 Mass. 401, 407-408, 348 N.E.2d 794 2. Assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. As the r......
-
Com. v. Drew
...Mass. 471, 474--475, 245 N.E.2d 415 (1969); Commonwealth v. Breen, 357 Mass, 441, 447--448, 258 N.E.2d 543 (1970); Commonwealth v. Burns, 362 Mass. 875, 289 N.E.2d 836 (1972); Commonwealth v. Morrow, 363 Mass. 601, 608--609, 296 N.E.2d 468 (1973); Commonwealth v. Kennedy, --- Mass.App. ---,......
-
Com. v. Zaleski
...testimony and from the exhibits, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Burns, 362 Mass. 875, 289 N.E.2d 836 (1972). The defendant is the president and treasurer of Eastern Renovating Corporation (Eastern), a Connecticut corporation engaged......