Com. v. Connors
| Citation | 185 N.E.2d 629,345 Mass. 102 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. James E. CONNORS. |
| Decision Date | 06 November 1962 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Walter E. Palmer, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Arnold E. Kahn, Boston, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK, and SPIEGEL, JJ.
The defendant contends that the evidence on which he was found guilty of the charge that on February 18, 1961, 'in the night time [he] did break and enter * * * [the building at 32 Freemont Street, Needham, occupied by the Seven-up Bottling Company] with intent therein to commit larceny,' was insufficient to take the case to the jury. We disagree.
There was evidence, including admissions of the defendant in statements to police officers, of these facts: At about 9 P.M. the building was secure and no automobile was parked in front of the Lawson's Express Company building on Wexford Street about 100 yards away. At about 9:42 P.M. an A. D. T. alarm brought two police officers to the site where, in the prevailing fog, they saw and pursued but failed to catch two men who were about forty or fifty feet or more from the officers and running away from the building. The police found a window jimmied, an interior wall broken, furnishings disturbed, and a safe jimmied. They also found a Ford automobile parked by the front door of the Lawson building
In the neighborhood are business houses and warehouses; there are only two dwelling houses in the whole area. None of the business houses was open for business.
The automobile found by the police had been hired by the defendant from General Rental Co. on the afternoon of February 17, under a weekend special contract. The contract for hire recited 'Only drive between 5 A.M.-8 P.M.' On the rear seat of the rented automobile were found a top coat, two hats, a pair of slacks, and a sweater. The defendant, who was traced through the rental company records, in his first statement to the police admitted that these articles were his and said he intended to take them to the cleaners.
The defendant also owned a Ford automobile which he customarily parked in the parking space of the Newtonville Gulf filling station on Washington Street, Newtonville. So far as known to Victor M. Martino, the owner or operator of the station, the defendant did not 'have his car on the day of February 18th, 1961,' nor 'have any kind of an automobile at * * * [the] place.'
On the morning of February 18, 1961, the defendant, with Roy King, went to the home in Dorchester of Owen Larkin, who then met the defendant for the first time. The defendant left after about a half hour without King. Mr. and Mrs. Larkin were at home on the evening of February 18. The defendant next came to Larkin's house about 2 A.M. on Sunday, February 19, alone and wearing a top coat. He remained in the house for breakfast and until about 9:30 A.M. These facts were testified to by Larkin and in part by his wife. The defendant telephoned his mother about 9 A.M. and told her where he was. She told him the Newton police were looking for him and he told her to tell the police that he would meet them at Newton Corner about 6 P.M. Another officer recalled that the defendant himself called the Newton police station and said he would see the police at 6 P.M.
According to the defendant's statements to the police, after leaving Larkin's house between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. the defendant went by M. T. A. to Brighton, arriving there about 1 P.M., and went to a bar. He stayed there drinking whiskey sours until about 6 P.M. and then took a cab to Newton Corner where he was picked up by the Newton police and taken to the Newton station. Although he said he had been drinking, the defendant appeared perfectly sober. He told the officers he had been unemployed since November. So far as the car being in Needham it must, he said, have been stolen. One officer recalled that the defendant, when asked what his car was doing on Wexford Street on February 18, replied that his car had been stolen but he had not reported it.
The defendant was then taken to the Needham police station and made this statement in substance: On the afternoon of February 17 he rode around in the rented car, part of the time with a girl and also with Robert Davis, a friend, and, after eating with Davis, going to the defendant's home at 147 Lowell Avenue, Newtonville, and driving Davis to Boston, the defendant drove back to Newtonville and parked the car in the Gulf gasoline station at Lowell Avenue and Washington Street. He did not want to drive after 7 P.M. as he had a restricted license. He went by bus and M. T. A. to 'a friend's house in West Roxbury whom he identified as Owen Larkin,'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Kater
...the cases in which we have held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict (see Commonwealth v. Connors, 345 Mass. 102, 105, 185 N.E.2d 629 [1962]; Commonwealth v. Eppich, 342 Mass. 487, 492-493, 174 N.E.2d 31 [1961] ), we conclude that the case was one for the ......
-
Commonwealth v. Woods
...or inconsistent statements to police. See Commonwealth v. Basch, 386 Mass. 620, 624–625, 437 N.E.2d 200 (1982); Commonwealth v. Connors, 345 Mass. 102, 105, 185 N.E.2d 629 (1962). Here, the defendant's inconsistencies were many. He initially told police that he did not know anyone in the He......
-
Com. v. Brown
...avoid arrest. The evidence established probable cause for arrest. It also tended to show consciousness of guilt. Commonwealth v. Connors, 345 Mass. 102, 105, 185 N.E.2d 629; Commonwealth v. Smith, 350 Mass. 600, 606--607, 215 N.E.2d 897. Coupled with the positive court room identification o......
-
Com. v. Smith
...v. Smith, 342 Mass. 180, 182--184, 172 N.E.2d 597. Commonwealth v. Swartz, 343 Mass. 709, 180 N.E.2d 685. Commonwealth v. Connors, 345 Mass. 102, 185 N.E.2d 629. See Commonwealth v. Bonomi, 335 Mass. 327, 356, 140 N.E.2d 140, and cases cited. 'Reasonable and possible' inferences were enough......