Com. v. Henry
| Decision Date | 06 November 1958 |
| Citation | 338 Mass. 786,153 N.E.2d 751 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. James P. HENRY (and a companion case). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Edward M. Viola, Asst. Dist. Atty., Medford, for the commonwealth.
John W. Mahaney and Joseph D. Neylon, Natick, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and RONAN, SPALDING, COUNIHAN and CUTTER, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendant was tried and convicted upon two complaints, one charging him with going away after causing property damage without disclosing his name and address, and the second charging him with operating a motor vehicle so negligently upon a public way as to endanger the safety of the public. Both complaints were based upon G.L. c. 90, § 24. The jury returned verdicts of guilty on both complaints. The cases are here upon the defendant's exceptions to the refusal of the judge to grant motions directing the jury to return verdicts for the defendant. There was evidence showing that an automobile owned by one Moore, while parked upon a public street in Natick, was struck in the rear by a green colored automobile which immediately departed after the impact. There was evidence that the automobile which struck the Moore automobile bore the registration number of the defendant's automobile; that the right front fender of the defendant's automobile left a deposit of green paint, similar to the color of the defendant's automobile, on the rear bumper of the Moore automobile; that the radiator of the defendant's automobile was hot when the defendant was interviewed by a police officer in about an hour after the accident; that the defendant told the officer that he, and only he, drove the automobile on the afternoon of the accident; and that this officer was of the opinion that during the interview the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. There was no error in the denial of the motions. The cases are clearly distinguishable from Commonwealth v. Shea, 324 Mass. 710, 88 N.E.2d 645. The inferences from the entire evidence warranted the jury in finding that the defendant was operating his automobile at the time of the accident. Commonwealth v. DiStasio, 297 Mass. 347, 360, 8 N.E.2d 923, 113 A.L.R. 1133; Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 305 Mass. 393, 401, 26 N.E.2d 235; Commonwealth v. Ehrlich, 308 Mass. 498, 500, 33 N.E.2d 259; Commonwealth v. Barker, 311 Mass. 82, 90-91, 40 N.E.2d 265.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Geisler
...to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question. See Commonwealth v. Henry, 338 Mass. 786, 153 N.E.2d 751 (1958); Commonwealth v. Swartz, 343 Mass. 709, 711-713, 180 N.E.2d 685 (1962); Commonwealth v. Rand, 363 Mass. 554, 561-562, 296 N.E.......
-
Commonwealth v. Beltrandi
...could open either of the front doors to the SUV, and the jaws of life were required to remove her). See also Commonwealth v. Henry, 338 Mass. 786, 153 N.E.2d 751 (1958) ; Commonwealth v. Rand, 363 Mass. 554, 561–562, 296 N.E.2d 200 (1973) (circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove operati......
-
Commonwealth v. Platt, SJC-08996 (Mass. 11/18/2003)
...supra at 713 (inference of defendant's guilt from all circumstances, "while not compelling, was at least permissible"). Commonwealth v. Henry, 338 Mass. 786 (1958) (inference from entire evidence warranted jury's finding that defendant operated vehicle at time of accident). Accordingly, we ......
-
Commonwealth v. Platt
...supra at 713 (inference of defendant's guilt from all circumstances, "while not compelling, was at least permissible"). Commonwealth v. Henry, 338 Mass. 786 (1958) (inference from entire evidence warranted jury's finding that defendant operated vehicle at time of accident). Accordingly, we ......