Com. v. Fredericks
| Decision Date | 14 January 1892 |
| Citation | 29 N.E. 622,155 Mass. 455 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Fredericks |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
N.E. Pillsbury, Atty. Gen., and G.C. Travis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
Cook & Coughlan, for defendant.
We infer that these two indictments were tried together, though this is not directly stated. No objection was made at the trial, or is now made, to this mode of proceeding. The mere fact that in a former indictment for larceny the description of the things alleged to have been stolen was such that the same evidence which would warrant a conviction upon that indictment might also be sufficient to warrant a conviction of the offenses charged in the present indictments did not, of itself, raise a presumption that the former offense was the same, so as to support a plea of former acquittal without further evidence of their identity. However it might be in a case where the former descriptions of the articles, and the averments of the time and place of the offense, so far corresponded as to appear on the face of the indictment to relate to the same larceny subsequently charged, the defendant must go further, and prove the identity of the offenses in a case like the present, where in both indictments the number of fowls charged to have been stolen and the time of the alleged larceny differ from the averments of the former indictment; and in one of the present indictments the averment of place also differs. Com. v. Sutherland, 109 Mass. 342. We are aware that it has sometimes been considered that the production of such a record makes a prima facie case for the defendant. 3 Greenl.Ev. § 36; State v. Smith, 22 Vt. 74, 77; Bainbridge v. State, 30 Ohio St. 264, 273. But, in a case like those now before us, we think it better to adhere to the doctrine of Com. v. Sutherland. The testimony of Burke was plainly insufficient for the defendant's purpose, and it is not relied on as sufficient in the defendant's brief. Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Di Stasio
...even though no technical issue of fact or law appears to have been raised. Commonwealth v. Clair, 7 Allen, 525;Commonwealth v. Fredericks, 155 Mass. 455, 29 N.E. 622;Commonwealth v. Porter, 237 Mass. 1, 129 N.E. 298;Commonwealth v. Jones, 288 Mass. 150, 192 N.E. 522. The defendant relies in......
-
Commonwealth v. Di Stasio
...interposed, even though no technical issue of fact or law appears to have been made. Commonwealth v. Clair, 7 Allen, 525. Commonwealth v. Fredericks, 155 Mass. 455 Commonwealth v. Porter, 237 Mass. 1 . Commonwealth v. Jones, 288 Mass. 150 . The defendant relies in this connection upon Commo......
-
Jones v. State
...Ill. 572; 92 Ky. 522; 65 Ala. 94, 98; 52 N.W. 775; 71 Ala. 315; 108 Mass. 433; 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 436; 36 P. 815; 30 Tex.App. 412; 155 Mass. 455; Cal. 139; 46 Ark. 141; 1 Bish. Cr. L. secs. 1051-2; 8 So. 445. 3. The continuance was properly refused. Defendant was ably represented by ot......
-
State v. Huffman
...... . . (1) The. plea of former acquittal raised an issue of fact on which. defendant was entitled to a jury trial. Com. v. Fredericks, 155 Mass. 455; 2 Van Fleet, Former. Adjudications, sec. 661; Grisham v. State, 19. Tex.App. 504; Troy v. State, 10 Tex.App. 319;. ......