Com. v. Burrough

• Decision Date: 01 January 1895
• Citation: 39 N.E. 184,162 Mass. 513
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. BURROUGH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

162 Mass. 513

39 N.E. 184

COMMONWEALTH v. BURROUGH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 1, 1895

COUNSEL

M.J. Sughrue, First Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

J.E Bates, for defendant.

OPINION

BARKER J.

1.As the defendant was defended by counsel, he had no right without being sworn as a witness, to make a narrative statement to the jury, or to tell them his side of the story.Com. v. McConnell(Mass.)39 N.E. 107.The refusal of the court to permit him to make any statement to the jury except by way of argument, unless he was first sworn as a witness in his own behalf, was correct, as was the final exclusion of his proposed statement when he declined either to be sworn or to argue the case.

2.The fact that the defendant had been called upon by the presiding justice of the municipal court, while a complaint was pending against him in that court upon the charges contained in the present indictment, and during proceedings in that court against other defendants, who were charged in another complaint with the offense described in the second count of the indictment, to tell the justice of the municipal court about the defendant's connection with the cases and that thereupon the defendant testified in the case against the other persons so charged, did not entitle him to be discharged from the prosecution.The commonwealth was not represented in the proceedings before the municipal court by its prosecuting officers, and it is unnecessary to consider the effect of the use by such an officer of the testimony of one also charged with the offense.

3.Before the hearing in the municipal courtthe defendant had made certain confessions to the...