Com. v. Gordon
| Decision Date | 19 January 1970 |
| Citation | 356 Mass. 598,254 N.E.2d 901 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Ronald GORDON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Reuben Goodman, Boston (Thomas J. Herbert, Quincy, with him), for defendant.
William J. Doyle, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK, SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.
The defendant is here on a bill of exceptions. At a trial in the Superior Court he was found guilty on three indictments severally charging him with rape, assault with a dangerous weapon, and kidnapping, and was thereafter sentenced to a correctional institution.
In relevant part the testimony was as follows. An eithteen year old girl, named in the indictments as the victim, was approached by the defendant after she alighted from a bus at Blue Hill Avenue and Wales Street in Boston on a stormy day in January, 1968, while on her way to work about a half block away. The defendant asked her if she wished any trouble, to which she replied, 'No.' He said, 'See what I got here,' while keeping his hand in his jacket pocket, and advised her to come along with him. She accompanied him to his apartment on Esmond Street where within a half hour she saw the defendant take a knife from a coat pocket. After some discussion of difficulties the defendant alleged he was having with a girl friend, the victim suggested that she should call the Salvation Army Day Care Center where she was employed to tell her employer that she would not be reporting for work. Her testimony was that through this means she hoped to alert the Center that help might be summoned. The defendant and the victim proceeded to a drug store three or four blocks away to make the call. The victim stated that at this time 'she was frightened and confused.' that the defendant stood in the doorway of the telephone booth during her telephone conversation, and that there were in the store at the time two elderly people, a man and a woman. Thereafter she purchased some cigarettes and some cookies at the drug store. The defendant and the victim then returned to the apartment where, after further conversation, the defendant brought her to his bedroom, undressed her and had intercourse with her, covering her face with a pillow to stifle her outcries. Thereafter, at the behest of the defendant, the victim donned some orange slacks which were not hers. There was further conversation about his difficulties with his girl friend to whom he wished the victim to make a telephone call on his behalf, and the defendant had her practice 'at least five times' a message she was to give to this individual over the telephone. About 1:30 P.M. the pair went to a supermarket and the call to the defendant's girl friend was placed by the victim. There were people in the market at the time but the victim made no attempt to cry out to them, claiming she was constantly in a state of fear. After the telephone call they purchased some hamburg and veal cutlets. Upon returning to the apartment the defendant tied the victim to a chair in a closet, gagged her with a scarf, and warned her not to escape. He left the apartment and returned within fifteen minutes to check on whether she was still tied. He departed again and returned in about an hour, during which time the victim freed herself but remained in the closet, stating that she was afraid that the defendant or 'some friends were waiting outside' because there was a lot of noise that she heard. While in the closet she noticed a box containing the name and address of the defendant's girl friend. She copied the address on a matchbook. Upon the return of the defendant she told him he could trust her 'not to go to the police because she hadn't tried to escape,' and asked permission to leave. The defendant then dragged her into a bedroom where he disrobed her and had sexual intercourse with her again, covering her mouth with a pillow to stifle outcries. About 5 P.M. they both left the apartment and took a cab to the Ashmont Station where they separated after saying 'that they didn't want to see each other again.'
There was evidence that on the journey to the drug store their path took them by the Salvation Army Day Care Center, and that they had passed a funeral procession of at least three cars containing passengers stopped along the sidewalk on which they were walking. While in the apartment the victim made coffee at one point and at another cooked and ate the hamburg which had been purchased. The victim testified that she was in a state of fear throughout the day notwithstanding the conversations in which she engaged with the defendant on a wide range of subjects including the possibility of 'having a black child,' her belief and participation in the activities of the civil rights movement, 'that at the age of eight she had a crush on a negro,' that she had on occasion smoked 'pot,' and that she had engaged in prior sexual relations with a boy friend. She described the defendant's appearance during the day saying that '(a)t times he was violent and approaching violence, irrational, frightening, and sometimes after talking he became calm and somewhat reasonable and not violent.' She also testified that as she was leaving the apartment for the last time the defendant said that he had planned to kill her and that he had some friends who were going to pick up her dead body.
Medical examination made of the victim at 11:45 P.M. on the day of this happening disclosed the presence of male sperm in the vagina of the victim within forty-eight hours of the examination and no evidence of trauma on the victim's body, face or thighs.
On recross-examination she said that only a few days before she had told the prosecuting attorney about the conversation with regard to the possibility of her being killed. Counsel for the defendant asked her whether she had testified to this before the grand jury and the court excluded the question, to which exclusion an exception was taken. Counsel for the defendant then asked her whether she had testified before the grand jury with reference to the matchbook. This question was also excluded and the defendant excepted. Relative to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Tarver
...Mass. 197, 209--210, 229 N.E.2d 267 (1967), cert. den. 390 U.S. 982, 88 S.Ct. 1106, 19 L.Ed.2d 1280 (1968). Commonwealth v. Gordon, 356 Mass. 598, 602--603, 254 N.E.2d 901 (1970). The defendant in substance argues that the record shows evidence of particularized need so compelling as to dem......
-
Com. v. Amirault
...from their consideration." Commonwealth v. Prendergast, 385 Mass. 625, 631, 433 N.E.2d 438 (1982), quoting Commonwealth v. Gordon, 356 Mass. 598, 604, 254 N.E.2d 901 (1970). The judge's instruction eliminated any prejudicial effect arising out of the prosecutor's statement. See Commonwealth......
-
Com. v. Cefalo
...discretion of the judge, who may "limit recross-examination to new matter adverted to on redirect-examination." Commonwealth v. Gordon, 356 Mass. 598, 602, 254 N.E.2d 901 (1970). Accord, R. L. Polk & Co. v. Living Aluminum Corp., 1 Mass.App.Ct. 170, 172, 294 N.E.2d 574 (1973). Cf. Commonwea......
-
Com. v. Clifford
...instructions of the trial judge to disregard the matters which have been withdrawn from their consideration." Commonwealth v. Gordon, 356 Mass. 598, 604, 254 N.E.2d 901, 904 (1970). See Commonwealth v. Stone, 366 Mass. 506, 513, 73 N.E.2d 896 Where we have held that the judge's instructions......