Com. v. Hartford

• Citation: 194 N.E.2d 401,346 Mass. 482
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Charles E. HARTFORD.
• Decision Date: 02 December 1963
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 401

194 N.E.2d 401

346 Mass. 482

COMMONWEALTH v. Charles E. HARTFORD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Argued Oct. 7, 1963.

Decided Dec. 2, 1963.

George Karelitz, Haverhill (Robert J. White, Haverhill, with him), for defendant.

Howard J. Camuso, Asst. Dist. Atty. (John J. Jennings, Asst. Dist. Atty., with him), for Commonwealth.

Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK, SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.

SPALDING, Justice.

In this indictment for murder the jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree of his wife Marilyn and recommended that the death sentence be not imposed. See G.L. c. 265, § 2, as amended. The case comes here on appeal, with a summary of the record, a transcript of the evidence, and an assignment of errors under G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, as amended.

There was evidence of the following: The defendant and Marilyn were married on June 18, 1958. She was fifteen years old and he was eighteen. Two children were born of the marriage. The marriage resulted in two separations. The first occurred in late 1960 and the second on January 2, 1962, when Marilyn went to live in a house owned by Charles L. Seavey, Jr. Others living in the house included Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell and their two children, and Wayne Seavey, the nineteen year old son of Charles. Late in January the two Hartford children, who had been living with their father (the defendant) and his parents, went to live with their mother. On numerous occasions there were telephone conversations between the defendant and his wife in which the defendant pleaded with her to return to him. On one occasion Marilyn told the defendant that '[t]here is always a bunch of big boys down there [Seavey's house] to take care of * * * [her]' in case of trouble.

On February 1, 1962, the defendant telephoned his wife at noon and she informed him that the children were going to remain with her. He left work at 1:30 P.M. and spent some time with Robert Tuck during which he bought six shotgun shells. He took one of his father's cars and drove to his mother's house. He called his wife several times and told her he was coming for the children. He then drove to the Seavey house, presumably to get them. He brought with him a shotgun loaded with the shells bought that day. Upon arriving there he parked his automobile at the side of the house and sounded the horn. Marilyn came out of the house and proceeded toward the car. An argument ensued and the Seaveys and Mrs. Mitchell heard loud voices or screams. At this point the evidence is somewhat confused. Marilyn screamed, 'Charlie, Charlie.' Charles Seavey started out the front door and at the same moment Hartford (who was also called Charlie) fired one shot ¹ from the car, then a second, and possibly a third. Marilyn was hit in the back by 'two distinct patterns of pellets' of No. 4 bird shot. One of these patterns struck her in the upper back, and the second struck her in the buttocks and legs. When shot Marilyn was about eight yards from the defendant's car. Charles Seavey was also hit by one of the blasts.

The defendant then drove his automobile away from the scene of the shooting, left his automobile, and went into some nearby woods where, in an attempt to shoot himself, he shot away part of the left side of his face. He was found in a nearby house and a trail of blood led to his shotgun which was found in a clearing in the woods. A discharged shotgun shell was found on the floor of the defendant's car. A second empty shell was found in front of the Seavey house, and a third expended shell was found in the chamber of the gun. All of these shells were twelve gauge shotgun shells loaded with No. 4 bird shot and were of the same kind and type which the defendant had purchased earlier that day.

1. Under assignments of error numbered 25, 26, and 40-42 the defendant argues that the Commonwealth's opening contained statements of expected evidence which were prejudicial to him. The prosecutor told the jury that Robert Tuck, a witness would tell them about a conversation that he had with the defendant in which the defendant told Tuck that he was going to kill his wife and that Tuck would testify that the defendant said to him, 'I'm going to get my wife one way or the other.' He also told the jury that Noyes, the man from whom the defendant purchased the shotgun shells, would testify that the defendant asked him which of the two types of shells (No. 6 or No. 4), was the more dangerous and, when informed that the No. 4 shells were 'heavier' and 'would do the biggest damage,' he purchased them. Neither Tuck nor Noyes testified in accordance with the opening.

The alleged impropriety of the opening was raised by the defendant in various ways but the basic question is the same. ² We are of opinion that there was no error. The prosecutor in his closing argument expressly withdrew the statement with respect to Tuck's testimony and asked the jury to 'erase it from * * * [their] mind.' 'As a general rule, counsel is free to state in his opening anything that he expects to be able to prove by evidence.' Commonwealth v. Clark, 292 Mass. 409, at 410, 198 N.E. 641, at 643. It sometimes happens that witnesses, either from lack of memory or otherwise, do not fulfill the expectations of counsel. There is no indication here that the statements in the opening were made in bad faith and it will not be presumed. Moreover, in his charge the judge told the jury that the Commonwealth's opening statement was not evidence and that they should consider only what Tuck and Noyes actually said on the witness stand. In view of the disavowal by the prosecutor and the instructions of the judge, we are of opinion that the defendant's rights were adequately protected. The defendant takes nothing by these assignments.

2. Another group of assignments of error (Nos. 3-17) presents the question of the propriety of certain questions put in direct examination to Tuck, a witness called by the Commonwealth. These questions sought to clicit from Tuck the matters referred to in the Commonwealth's opening, namely, whether the defendant had told him on the day of the shooting that he intended to kill his wife. Tuck, when interrogated as to this alleged conversation, stated that he did not remember. He was then shown a written memorandum of the conversation to refresh his recollection but Tuck, who could not read, stated that the writing did not aid his memory. Having exhausted Tuck's memory, the prosecutor was permitted to put, subject to the defendant's exception, a series of leading questions which asked him whether the defendant had told him that he was going to kill his wife.

The defendant argues that these questions amount to cross-examination by the Commonwealth of its own witness and exceeded permissible limits. The further contention is made that the interrogation amounted to an impeachment of the witness in violation of G.L. c. 233, § 23. ³ Neither of these contentions can be sustained. There was no violation of § 23, for there was no attempt to 'impeach his credit by evidence of bad character.' Nor was there any attempt to contradict him by prior inconsistent statements. In view of Tuck's lack of memory this would not ordinarily be permissible. Langan v. Pianowski, 307 Mass. 149, 151, 29 N.E.2d 700. All that was done here was to permit leading questions to be put in an attempt to rehabilitate Tuck's memory. The judge might have concluded that Tuck was either a hostile witness or one whose memory needed to be refreshed. There was no abuse of discretion in permitting this examination. Commonwealth v. Coshnear, 289 Mass. 516, 527, 194 N.E. 900.

3. Shirley Mitchell, who lived at the Seavey home at the time of the shooting, when called by the Commonwealth was permitted to testify to certain telephone conversations with the defendant. When this evidence was admitted, she had stated that she recognized the defendant's voice. However, on cross-examination she admitted that although the speaker purported to be the defendant and although she had received other calls from him she did not know the defendant and had never talked face to face with him. At this point counsel for the defendant moved that these conversations be stricken and the motion was denied. There was no error.

Of course, the mere fact that the speaker said he was the defendant was not enough to render the conversation admissible. Bond Pharmacy, Inc. v. Cambridge, 338 Mass. 488, 491, 156 N.E.2d 34. But, even without recognition of the voice, there may be other confirming circumstances which made the conversation admissible. Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed.) § 2155(1)(b). McCormick on Evidence, § 193, pp. 405-406. We are of opinion that such confirming circumstances existed here. With respect to each call the defendant identified himself as the speaker and asked to speak with his wife. On one of the calls the witness turned over the telephone to the defendant's wife who took it into another room to continue the conversation. On another call the speaker asked if his wife was 'running around on him.' At another time the speaker told the witness that he was coming down to see his wife and children that night, and the defendant did in fact do so. See Commonwealth v. Aronson, 330 Mass. 453, 460, 115 N.E.2d 362. A representative of the telephone company testified that four calls were sent from the defendant's telephone number to the Seavey's number during the afternoon of February 1, 1962, at about the time when the witness claimed to have talked with the defendant on the telephone. Finally, the defendant himself testified to having made several telephone calls to his wife on February 1, 1962, and told of the conversations with his wife and some other woman. We think the trial judge rightly left the question to the jury.

4. The defendant argues (assignment of error No. 43) that his rights were impaired because there was no compliance with G.L....