Com. v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 04 January 1900 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. JOHNSON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
M. J. Sughrue, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Wm. H Sullivan, for defendant.
This was an indictment for perjury. There was a verdict against the defendant, and the case comes here on appeal from the order of the superior court overruling the defendant's motion in arrest of judgment. The grounds of the motion are First, that no offense was sufficiently charged in the indictment; second, that the verdict was against the evidence; third, that it was against the law; and, fourth that the evidence in regard to which the perjury was alleged to have been committed was not material to the issue. The defendant had been indicted for larceny, and it was at the trial for that offense that the perjury was alleged to have been committed. He offered himself as a witness, and was asked if he had ever been arrested before (meaning before the arrest for the charge for which he was then on trial), if he had ever been convicted of any offense, if he had ever served a sentence in prison, and if he had ever served a sentence for a crime. His answer to each question was a denial.
The defendant could not have been compelled to testify, and his neglect or refusal to take the stand in his own behalf would not have created any presumption against him. Pub. St. c. 169, § 18, cl. 3. When he became a witness he waived his privilege, and was bound to testify in regard to any matters that were pertinent to the issue. Com. v. Smith, 163 Mass. 411, 40 N.E. 189, and cases cited; Com. v. Moore, 162 Mass. 441, 38 N.E. 1120, and cases cited. His truthfulness was a material question (Com. v. Smith, 163 Mass. 432, 40 N.E. 189), and it is expressly provided by statute that 'the conviction of a witness of a crime may be shown to affect his credibility' (Pub. St. c. 169, § 19). The matters concerning which he was asked were therefore clearly pertinent to the issue. There is nothing to show, if that is now material, that the defendant's rights were not fully protected, or that the record in regard to any previous conviction was not produced.
The only objection urged to the sufficiency of the indictment is that it does not set forth that when the questions were asked a copy of any previous conviction had been offered in evidence, or was in the possession of the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Richmond
... ... Com. v. Harlow, 110 ... Mass. 411; Com. v. Maloney, 113 Mass. 211; [93 N.E ... 820] Com. v. Costley, 118 Mass. 1-27; Com. v ... Scott, 123 Mass. 238, 25 Am. Rep. 81; Com. v ... Finnerty, 148 Mass. 162, 19 N.E. 215; Com. v ... Smith, 163 Mass. 411-433, 40 N.E. 189; Com. v ... Johnson, 175 Mass. 152, 55 N.E. 804. Two different ... courses of dealing with cases, where there has been any ... infraction of this rule, appear to be followed by the courts ... of the several states. Some hold that any reference to the ... subject in argument must be presumed to do irreparable harm ... ...
-
Com. v. Bernier
...he took the stand as a witness, his testimony could not be so limited. Commonwealth v. Tolliver, 119 Mass. 312, 315; Commonwealth v. Johnson, 175 Mass. 152, 153, 55 N.E. 804; Commonwealth v. Fortier, 358 Mass. 98, 100, 155 N.E. 8; Commonwealth v. Galvin, 310 Mass. 733, 748, 39 N.E.2d 656. H......
-
Herndon v. State
... ... R. A. (N ... S.) 385, to which a valuable note is appended, citing a ... number of authorities. As was held in Commonwealth v ... Johnson, 175 Mass. 152, 55 N.E. 804: ... 'If ... the defendant in a criminal case offers himself as a witness, ... he may be asked if he has ever ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Fortier
...while he is on the witness stand. Commonwealth v. Smith, 163 Mass. 411, 431, 40 N. E. 189, and cases collected; Commonwealth v. Johnson, 175 Mass. 152, 153, 55 N. E. 804;Commonwealth v. Tolliver, 119 Mass. 312, 315. It is not open to doubt that, if the defendant had pleaded guilty to the co......