Com. v. Croft
| Decision Date | 28 November 1962 |
| Citation | 345 Mass. 143,186 N.E.2d 468 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Bernard CROFT. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Albert L. Hutton, Jr., Boston (Ronald J. Chisholm, Winchester, with him), for defendant.
John A. Pino, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK, and SPIEGEL, JJ.
An indictment, drawn in two counts, charged the defendant in count 1 with unlawful possession of heroin and in count 2 with possession of heroin with the intent unlawfully to sell and deliver it. He was tried before a jury, found guilty on each count, and sentenced to a term of not more than ten years and not less than seven years. The defendant is here on his exception to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict on count 2.
There was evidence that several police officers went to the defendant's home at 564 Warren Street, Roxbury, on March 21, 1961; that some of the officers engaged in a conversation with the defendant; that while the conversation was taking place, two officers found some heroin and other narcotics in a common hallway which led down from the rear of the defendant's apartment; that, when shown the drugs found in the hall, the defendant admitted that the heroin was his but denied that any of the other narcotics belonged to him. The heroin found was worth about $80 retail value. The defendant admitted that he had been an habitual user of heroin but had 'kicked it three weeks ago.' There was further testimony that the defendant and the officers went to the cellar of the defendant's house where he showed the officers other narcotics, none of which was heroin, hidden behind a board.
There was no direct evidence of any intention to sell or deliver the heroin in question and there are no cases or statutes in this jurisdiction creating any presumption that a person who has possession of heroin has it with the intention to sell it. The Commonwealth's case, therefore, rests solely on circumstantial evidence, the rule for the probative character of which is well settled. It is that .' Commonwealth v. Burke, 339 Mass. 521, 527, 159 N.E.2d 856, 860, 77 A.L.R.2d 451.
While the rule of law is clear, it is not always easily applied. On the sparse evidence presented the Commonwealth has shown merely the bare possession of heroin coupled with the defendant's admission that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. McLeod
...of two inconsistent propositions, neither of them can be said to have been established by legitimate proof. Commonwealth v. Croft, 345 Mass. 143, 145, 186 N.E.2d 468 (1962). Smith v. First Nat'l Bank, 99 Mass. 605, 612 (1868). See Commonwealth v. Burke, 339 Mass. 521, 528-529, 159 N.E.2d 85......
-
Com. v. White
...propositions. Commonwealth v. Salemme, 395 Mass. 594, 601, 481 N.E.2d 471 (1985). Commonwealth v. Fancy, supra. Commonwealth v. Croft, 345 Mass. 143, 144, 186 N.E.2d 468 (1962). It is equally well established, however, that the Commonwealth need not "show that it was not in the power of any......
-
Com. v. Clifford
...should be believed. Commonwealth v. Vellucci, supra at 446, 187 N.E. 909. The defendant erroneously relies on Commonwealth v. Croft, 345 Mass. 143, 145, 186 N.E.2d 468, 469 (1962), where this court stated: "When the evidence tends equally to sustain either of two inconsistent propositions, ......
-
Commonwealth v. Romero
...of two inconsistent propositions, neither of them can be said to have been established by legitimate proof.” Commonwealth v. Croft, 345 Mass. 143, 145, 186 N.E.2d 468 (1962), quoting from Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 305 Mass. 393, 400, 26 N.E.2d 235 (1940). Specifically, the defendant claims t......