Com. v. Early
| Decision Date | 01 December 1965 |
| Citation | 212 N.E.2d 457,349 Mass. 636 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Walter Edward EARLY (and a companion case). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Bernard E. Bradley, Jr., Watertown (Ronald J. Chisholm, Winchester, with him), for defendants.
Dante J. DeMichaelis, Asst. Dist. Atty. (Ruth I. Abrams, Asst. Dist. Atty., with him), for the Commonwealth.
Before SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.
The two defendants, Early and Fuller, were tried to a jury, subject to G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, under two indictments charging each with unarmed robbery. Both defendants were found guilty. The cases come here on their appeals with one assignment of error. The error assigned is the denial of the defendants' motion for a mistrial, which occurred in these circumstances. One Denommee, a police officer of the city of Lowell who had investigated the case, was called as a witness by the Commonwealth and testified with respect to the arrest of the defendants. On cross-examination by counsel representing both defendants the officer was asked whether a photograph had been taken of Fuller when he was brought to the police station, and the officer stated that he was not there at that time. Counsel then asked him whether it was customary 'to photograph people arrested and charged with a crime in the Lowell Police station.' The officer replied, 'The defendant has a prior record and he had this picture.' Thereupon defence counsel moved for a mistrial. The motion was denied, subject to the defendants' exception. The judge then said, 'I will ask the jury to disregard it.' Following a bench conference, the judge said further, 'I am going to ask the jury to please disregard the last statement that the officer made in regard to the defendant that he was speaking about.' The officer's answer was not responsive and contained incompetent evidence. The proper practice in such a case is for the objecting party to move to have the answer struck, and to save an exception if the motion is denied. Commonwealth v. McGarty, 323 Mass. 435, 439, 82 N.E.2d 603. This course was not pursued. But the judge in effect did all that such a motion, if made and granted, could have accomplished. He was not obliged to go further and declare a mistrial. That was a matter within his discretion. Curley v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 314 Mass. 31, 49 N.E.2d 445. No abuse of discretion appears.
Judgments affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Flynn
...411, and cases cited, cert. den. sub nom. Bellino v. Massachusetts, 330 U.S. 832, 67 S.Ct. 872, 91 L.Ed. 1280. Commonwealth v. Early, 349 Mass. 636, 637, 212 N.E.2d 457. See Commonwealth v. Barker, 311 Mass. 82, 87--88, 40 N.E.2d 265; Killilea v. United States, 287 F.2d 212, 215 (1st Cir.),......
-
Com. v. Cifizzari
...heard by the jury. Therefore, the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial. See Commonwealth v. Early, 349 Mass. 636, 637, 212 N.E.2d 457 (1965). The substance of the brother's confession was not in evidence nor did the witness mention the defendant's name wit......
-
Com. v. Barnett
...answer. See the comparable cases, Commonwealth v. Flynn, 362 Mass. 455, 470--471, 287 N.E.2d 420 (1972), and Commonwealth v. Early, 349 Mass. 636, 637, 212 N.E.2d 457 (1965). 5. The prosecutor in cross-examining the defendant about his explanation of the shoulder wound put questions as to w......
-
Com. v. Campbell
...the allowance of the motion to strike. See Commonwealth v. Lannon, 364 Mass. 480, 484-485, 306 N.E.2d 248 (1974); Commonwealth v. Early, 349 Mass. 636, 212 N.E.2d 457 (1965). We also note that the judge instructed the jury that the testimony of the pathologist could be accepted or rejected ......