Com. v. Curry
| Decision Date | 05 May 1960 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Rufus CURRY and two other cases. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Albert L. Hutton, Jr., Boston (Ronald J. Chisholm, Winchester, with him), for defendant.
Gerald Miraldi, Asst. Dist. Atty., Boston (John E. Driscoll, Jamaica Plain, with him), for the Commonwealth.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and WILLIAMS, COUNIHAN, WHITTEMORE, and CUTTER, JJ.
The defendant was found guilty and sentenced on three indictments which charged him respectively with intent to sell heroin under G.L. c. 94, § 212A, as appearing in St.1957, c. 660, § 1 (No. 1411 of 1959); with possession of heroin under G.L. c. 94, § 212, as appearing in St.1958, c. 95, § 2 (No. 1413 of 1959); and jointly with one Eugene Rhodes with conspiracy to violate the narcotic drugs law under G.L. c. 94, § 217B, inserted by St.1957, c. 660, § 1 (No. 1410 of 1959). These indictments were tried with other indictments against Rhodes to which he pleaded guilty after the close of the evidence. During the trial the defendant Curry excepted to the admission of certain evidence, to the refusal to instruct the jury as requested, and to the denial of motions for directed verdicts of not guilty.
There was evidence that on November 5, 1958, two police officers and a Federal narcotics agent gained entrance to room 205 in the Columbus Arms Hotel on Columbus Avenue in Boston and found Rhodes lying upon a bed. There was a package under the wash basin and several small packages on the bureau containing a white powder which upon analysis proved to be heroin. They found in the room a hypodermic syringe, two hypodermic needles and a 'cooking cup.' Rhodes was arrested and at the police station gave a statement to the police which was reduced to writing and signed by him. Therein he stated that he had known Curry, whom he knew as 'Jeep,' eight or nine years, having first met him in Philadelphia. On Monday night, November 3, he met Jeep in New York city. They pooled their money with one 'Sarge' and bought one hundred bags of which Sarge took twenty-eight and Jeep and Rhodes kept about seventy. They talked about selling them in Boston where Jeep said he knew a lot of 'junkies.' About 12:20 P.M. on November 4 Jeep and he took a bus for Boston, he, Rhodes, carrying the bags in his pocket. They arrived in Boston about 9:30 P.M., getting off before reaching the terminal and taking a cab which Jeep directed to be driven to Columbus Arms Hotel. Jeep got off at the corner of Massachusetts and Columbus avenues and Rhodes went to the hotel at 455 Columbus Avenue and registered as Walker Jones. Later that night Jeep came in and said that he had rented room 203. Jeep came into Rhodes's room between 11 A.M. and 12 M. the next morning and said that he was going out on the street with some of the bags. Rhodes later checked out but went back to the hotel and checked in again in the same room. Rhodes hid the heroin, which he said belonged to him, under the wash basin. The heroin which was bought in New York was purchased from a man known as 'Moose.' Jeep did not put any money of his own in the deal as Rhodes was going to split fifty-fifty after expenses. Jeep and Rhodes took the bus for Boston at the Greyhound Terminal at 54th Street and Jeep paid for the bus tickets.
Curry was arrested on the same day at the corner of Columbus and Massachusetts avenues. At police headquarters he stated that he had come to Boston the night before on a bus. When asked where he had stayed that night he said that he had walked the streets but could not remember their names, not being familiar with them. After more questioning he said 'All right, I will tell you, I stayed at the Columbus Arms Hotel.' He said that he was in room 203 and registered under the name of Rufus Hill. He was asked why he had the two bus stubs which had been found upon him when he was arrested. He said that he had bought one and found the other on the floor of the bus terminal in New York. Later he said that he collected the bus stubs in Boston. He was asked, 'Isn't it rather odd that the numbers on the bus tickets are consecutive?' and he answered 'Yes, it does seem like it was a coincidence; it could happen that way.' He said that he talked with three other colored fellows on the bus and all left the bus before it reached the terminal intending to play cards. They then decided not to play and he and one of them whom he knew as Gene took a cab. He left the cab at the corner of Columbus and Massachusetts avenues and Gene drove off. He next saw Gene when he registered at the Columbus Arms Hotel. Gene was walking upstairs. He never saw Gene after that and did not know whether he stayed there as a guest.
Rhodes's statement was read to Curry and he said Rhodes's statement was admitted in evidence but only against him and the jury were instructed at the request of Curry's attorney, both when it was read to the jury and subsequently when it was marked as an exhibit, that it was limited to Rhodes and was not to be considered against Curry Near the end of the trial the attorney 'renewed his request that the court rule that this statement was not admissible because the defendant denied it' and requested that the jury be instructed 'that the statement of Rhodes was admissible only as a foundation for the answers of Curry and not as affirmative evidence.' There was no error in refusing these requests. The judge, having already ruled twice that the statement was not evidence against Curry, was not required to repeat his ruling, or to rule that it was only admissible for the limited purpose suggested by the attorney. Curry was questioned in the presence of Rhodes as to meeting him and talking with him at the New York bus terminal. Curry at first denied that he had any conversation with Rhodes (or Gene) 'because Gene stood back of him at the line at the ticket counter.' Rhodes in reply to a question by an officer stated that 'Jeep purchased...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Harris
...'biting his lips' to be viewed as an equivocal response in regard to an accusation of guilt or misconduct. Compare Commonwealth v. Curry, 341 Mass. 50, 166 N.E.2d 714 (1960). As to the problem of the defendant's flight from the police, however, see generally Montecalvo, supra at --- - ---, ......
-
Com. v. Montecalvo
...v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 316--317 (1850); Commonwealth v. Bonomi, 335 Mass. 327, 346--348, 140 N.E.2d 140 (1957); Commonwealth v. Curry, 341 Mass. 50, 55, 166 N.E.2d 714 (1960); Commonwealth v. Swartz, 343 Mass. 709, 712--713, 180 N.E.2d 685 (1962). Although this theory usually has been app......
-
Com. v. White
...within the hearsay exception and cannot be offered against another coventurer to prove the matters asserted. See Commonwealth v. Curry, 341 Mass. 50, 53, 166 N.E.2d 714 (1960). See also Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 490--491, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Patton v. Ind......
-
Com. v. Smith
...Evidence of consciousness of guilt, while not conclusive, may with other evidence be sufficient to prove guilt. Commonwealth v. Curry, 341 Mass. 50, 55, 166 N.E.2d 714, and cases cited. Commonwealth v. Swartz, 343 Mass. 709, 713, 180 N.E.2d 685. This is not a case on which the guilt of the ......