Com. v. Krasner
| Decision Date | 02 February 1967 |
| Citation | 351 Mass. 648,223 N.E.2d 508 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Irving KRASNER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Richard S. Schultz Brockton, for defendant.
A. Stanley Littlefield, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, KIRK and SPIEGEL, JJ.
The defendant was originally tried in the District Court on a complaint charging him with having caused 'to explode * * * (a) combustible or explosive composition or substance * * * which was prepared for the purpose of producing a visible or audible effect by combustion, explosion, deflagration or detonation' in violation of G.L. c. 148, § 39. Upon appeal to the Superior Court the jury returned a verdict of 'Guilty.' The case is before us on a bill of exceptions.
At the trial there was evidence tending to show that the defendant became involved in an altercation with one Manderville at about 2 A.M. on November 16, 1964.
The defendant's exceptions are (1) to the judge's instruction to the jury 'that if the defendant did in fact fire a tear gas projector and by so doing did cause an 'explosion, deflagration or detonation * * *' the jury would be warranted in finding the defendant guilty as charged'; and (2) to the judge's refusal to instruct the jury 'that it was necessary for the jury to find that the tear gas cartridge was discharged for the purpose of 'producing a visible or audible effect by combustion, explosion, deflagration or detonation' rather than for the purpose of self defense in order to warrant a finding of guilty.'
General Laws c. 148, § 39, as amended through St.1956, c. 213, reads in material part as follows: 'No person shall * * * use, explode, or cause to explode, any combustible or explosive composition or substance, or any combination of such compositions or substances, or any other article, which was prepared for the purpose of producing a visible or andible effect by combustion, explosion, deflagration or detonation, including in the above terms blank cartridges or toy cannons * * * firecrackers, torpedoes, sky-rockets, Roman candles, * * * or other fireworks of like construction or any fireworks containing any explosive or flammable compound, or any tablets or other device containing any explosive substance; provided, that the term 'fireworks' as used herein shall not include * * * (several listed items)' (emphasis supplied).
The clear intent of the statute is to proscribe the use of certain fireworks and related devices. We are not inclined to expand the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Sampson
...carrying to the same regulation and penalties as that provided for instruments that are weapons by design. Cf. Commonwealth v. Krasner, 351 Mass. 648, 223 N.E.2d 508 (1967). 12 Even were we to assume the flare device here constituted a weapon, we would hesitate to conclude that it has been ......
-
Howell v. State
...aff'd, 131 F.2d 261 (2d Cir. 1942), rev'd on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463, 63 S.Ct. 1241, 87 L.Ed. 1519 (1943); Commonwealth v. Krasner, 351 Mass. 648, 223 N.E.2d 508 (1967); State v. Umbrello, 106 N.H. 336, 211 A.2d 400 (1965); State v. Seng, 91 N.J.Super. 50, 219 A.2d 185 (1966); People v.......