Com. v. Holmes

• Decision Date: 20 October 1892
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. HOLMES.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

157 Mass. 233

32 N.E. 6

COMMONWEALTH v. HOLMES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

October 20, 1892

COUNSEL

A.E. Pillsbury, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

A.L Green and M.F. Druel, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON J.

The only exception which has been argued to us is that relating to the admissibility of evidence introduced by the government as to threats and acts of violence on the part of the defendant towards his wife from shortly after their marriage down to or nearly down to the time of the alleged homicide. The evidence tended to show that these acts and threats occurred, with more or less frequency, during all that time with the exception of about 15 months in 1888 and 1889, when they were separated, and of a few months--though just how many did not appear--after they lived together again. We think that the evidence was clearly admissible in connection with the other circumstances. It tended to show a settled ill will and malice on the part of the defendant towards his wife, and therefore bore directly on the question of whether there was any motive for him to commit the crime. It was not admitted for the purpose of showing separate and independent acts and threats, but for the purpose of showing a course of conduct. It was unavoidable that in showing the cause of defendant's conduct evidence of his acts and threats should be introduced. His course of conduct could not be shown so satisfactorily in any other way. Com. v. Goodwin, 14 Gray, 55; Com. v. Madan, 102 Mass. 1; Com. v. Bradford, 126 Mass. 42; Com. v. Quinn, 150 Mass. 401, 23 N.E. 54; Com. v. Abbott, 130 Mass. 472; Com. v. Ryan, 134 Mass. 223; State v. Rash, 12 Ired. 382; Cluck v. State, 40 Ind. 263, 268; Mimms v. State, 16 Ohio St. 221; Sharp v. People, 29 Ill. 464; Thrasher v. State, 3 Tex.App. 281. The question of the remoteness of the acts and threats were for the court, in the exercise of its discretion, and we see nothing to indicate that the discretion was exercised erroneously. Com. v. Goodwin, supra; Com. v. Bradford, supra; Com. v. Quinn, supra; Com. v. Abbott, supra; Com. v. Ryan, supra. The separation for 15 months would tend to indicate, if anything, a continuance of ill feeling on defendant's part towards his wife, and there is nothing to show on what terms they began to live together again. Even if there had been a reconciliation, that, followed as it was by a resumption by the defendant of his threats and acts of violence, would not render evidence of former acts and threats inadmissible, ( Robbins v. Robbins, 100 Mass. 150;) and these, taken in connection with his subsequent acts and threats, tended to show a substantially continuous course of such conduct.

The motion to quash on the ground that the grand jury knew of the...