Com. v. Flaherty
| Decision Date | 03 February 1971 |
| Citation | 266 N.E.2d 875,358 Mass. 817 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Patrick E. FLAHERTY (and fourteen companion cases 1 ). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
David Burres, Stephen W. Silverman, Springfield, for defendants.
Before TAURO, C.J., and CUTTER, SPIEGEL, REARDON, and QUIRICO, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendants appeal under G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G, from their several convictions at a trial without jury of (1) unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, G.L. c. 94, § 205; (2) being present where a narcotic drug is illegally kept or deposited, G.L. c. 94, § 213A; and (3) growing a narcotic drug, G.L. c. 94, § 198A. Police searched a second floor apartment in the town of Sunderland pursuant to a valid search warrant and found quantities of marihuana in two of the four bedrooms in the apartment and nine lumps of green hashish in the pocket of an unidentified jacket hanging over a chair in the hallway. All of the five defendants were located in the hallway and kitchen of the apartment when the police entered. The prosecution's case rests on the following evidence. A tenant in a first floor apartment who had been living in the apartment building for about a year before the defendants' arrest on February 6, 1969, testified that during that period of time he had seen the defendants 'several times * * * entering, leaving, or about the premises' but that he had never visited them 'in any area of the house.' He occasionally 'heard knocking' at the door leading up to the upstairs, apartment in question, but he 'didn't see them knock.' There was testimony that a valise bearing the name Patrick Flaherty was found in one of the bedrooms. However, there was no evidence that Flaherty or any of the other defendants rented the apartment, or that they lived there or spent any considerable amount of time there, or that they had control over the apartment or its contents. The Commonwealth's case against the defendants falls far short of 'proof that the accused was 'present where (he knew) a narcotic drug * * * (was) illegally kept or deposited. " Commonwealth v. Buckley, 354 Mass. 508, 512, 238 N.E.2d 335, 338. Commonwealth v. Tirella,356 Mass. 271, 249 N.E.2d 573. 'It is essential * * * that the circumstances taken as a whole, and giving them their reasonable and just weight, and no more, should to a moral certainty exclude every other hypothesis.' Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 319. The evidence does not exclude...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Arias
...of the presence of cocaine. See Commonwealth v. Albano, 373 Mass. 132, 135, 365 N.E.2d 808 (1977). Contrast Commonwealth v. Flaherty, 358 Mass. 817, 266 N.E.2d 875 (1971). There could hardly be more potent evidence of an intention by the defendants to exercise dominion and control of the pr......
-
Com. v. Dion
...sufficient evidence of the defendant's connection to the place where the contraband was discovered). Compare Commonwealth v. Flaherty, 358 Mass. 817, 818, 266 N.E.2d 875 (1971); Commonwealth v. Pursley, 2 Mass.App.Ct. 910, 321 N.E.2d 830 (1975); Commonwealth v. Duffy, 4 Mass.App.Ct. 655, 65......
-
Com. v. Albano
...of knowledge, and a directed verdict proper. Commonwealth v. Boone, 356 Mass. 85, 248 N.E.2d 279 (1969). See also Commonwealth v. Flaherty, 358 Mass. 817, 266 N.E.2d 875 (1971). On review of the record, however, we find sufficient circumstantial evidence of the defendant's knowledge to warr......
-
Com. v. Caterino
...over the apartment or its contents. Nor were his personal effects found in the apartment. See and compare Commonwealth v. Flaherty, 358 Mass. 817, 818, 266 N.E.2d 875 (1971); Commonwealth v. Lee, 2 Mass.App.Ct. 700, 704-705, 319 N.E.2d 732 (1974); Commonwealth v. Rarick, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 912......