Com. v. Francis
| Decision Date | 02 January 1969 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Roger D. FRANCIS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Alfred E. Nugent, Boston, for defendant.
John Clark Wheatley, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the commonwealth.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.
This is an appeal under G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G. The defendant was tried before a jury on an indictment charging him with murder and was convicted of murder in the first degree. The jury recommended that the death sentence be not imposed and the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The defendant alleged various assignments of error but has pressed only two of those before us. He further contends that the court erred in excluding from the jury persons who said they were opposed to capital punishment.
1. The defendant first asserts that there was error in denying at the close of the Commonwealth's case his motion for a directed verdict on the basis that the Commonwealth failed to introduce sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in returning a verdict of guilty. The Commonwealth had introduced evidence that the defnedant had been with the deceased on March 11, 1967; that she was last seen in his company before she was found by a State Trooper, alive but unconscious, at 6 A.M. on March 12, 1967, on a median strip dividing Route 3 in Hingham; that there were tire marks leading to the median strip where her body was discovered; that the automobile which the defendant had been driving was found abandoned in Canada containing stains of a type of blood matching that of the deceased; and that the same gun had fired both the bullets found in the deceased's body and those, fragments of which were found in the defendant's car. There weas further evidence of the defendant's flight to Canada and his statements to police from Hingham who arrived to return him. To them he said on March 20, 1967, 'I've been expecting you fellows.' After being shown a warrant he asked if the deceased were still alive and was informed she had died the day before. He thereupon inquired, 'Will I get the chair for first degree?' The Hingham police chief responded he 'didn't know.' These circumstances taken together are of 'a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion, and producing in effect a reasonable and moral certainty, that the accused, and no one else, committed the offence charged.' Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 319. Commonwealth v. Russ, 232 Mass. 58, 68, 122 N.E. 176. Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 305 Mass. 393, 400, 26 N.E.2d 235. Commonweath v. Shea, 324 Mass. 710, 713, 88 N.E.2d 645. In employing in review this time tested rule we cannot say that the facts in evidence might not reasonably impel a jury to find them incompatible with the innocence of the defendant and not in accord with any other theory than his guilt. There was no error in the denial of the motion.
2. The defendant argues that there was error in the denial of his motion for a new trial which was based on the nature and effect of testimony given by three doctors on the question of the defendant's sanity. Two were called by the defence and testified that the defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defect which deprived him of substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law at the time of the crime. A third medical witness called by the prosecution testified to the contrary on direct examination. The defendant contends that upon cross-examination this witness changed his testimony and so contradicted the testimony he gave relative to the defendant's capacity on direct examination as to agree with the opinions expressed by the two medical witnesses whom the defendant called. The defendant urges upon us therefore that 'there was unanimous medical opinion that the Defendant was not criminally responsible.' Our reading of the evidence does not lead us to conclude that there was such a unanimity. However, the issue which has been raised can be properly framed as follows: If two defence experts testify to a defendant's mental incapacity and a prosecution expert states on direct examination that the defendant has met the tests of substantial capacity defined in Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544, 226 N.E.2d 556, but later contradicts himself on cross-examination, is a verdict finding the defendant criminally culpable permissible? The transcript discloses extensive direct and cross-examination of the three doctors and it would appear that the jury had before them for consideration full and complete information on the varied aspects of that type of mental disease with which the defnedant was allegedly afflicted. There was testimony that the affliction could wax and wane in severity. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Walker
...no sane person would have committed the act. Commonwealth v. Smith, supra 357 Mass. at 180, 258 N.E.2d 13. See Commonwealth v. Francis, 355 Mass. 108, 111, 243 N.E.2d 169 (1969); id. at 112 (Whittemore and Cutter, JJ., dissenting). The charge to the jury clearly and correctly pointed out th......
-
Com. v. Keita
...responsible, but the jury may have misunderstood some of the expert medical opinion. Commonwealth v. Francis, 355 Mass. 108, 112, 243 N.E.2d 169 (1969) (Whittemore and Cutter, JJ., dissenting). See Commonwealth v. Kostka, supra at 539, 350 N.E.2d 444 (Hennessey, C.J., dissenting in part, wi......
-
Com. v. Montecalvo
...Mass. 168, 178, 258 N.E.2d 13 (1970). Ordinarily where expert medical witnesses differ, there is a jury issue. Commonwealth v. Francis, 355 Mass. 108, 111, 246 N.E.2d 169 (1969); Commonwealth v. Fleming, 360 Mass. 404, 407--408, 274 N.E.2d 809 (1971). There was clearly a difference of opini......
-
Com. v. Smith
...with approval and applied in a number of our cases, including the Cox, Hartford and Ricard cases, supra, and in Commonwealth v. Francis, 355 Mass. 108, 111, 243 N.E.2d 169. It is clear from the Clark opinion that the rule which it states does not merely create a presumption in favor of sani......