Com. v. Lee
| Decision Date | 01 March 1954 |
| Citation | 117 N.E.2d 830,331 Mass. 166 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. LEE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Walter E. Stuka, Asst. Dist, Atty., Clinton, A. Andre Gelinas, Asst. Dist. Atty., Fitchburg, for the Commonwealth.
George H. Yagjian, Worcester, Harry Zarrow, Worcester, for the defendant.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, RONAN, WILKINS and WILLIAMS, JJ.
General Laws (Ter.Ed.) c. 94, § 211, as it appears in St.1938, c. 321, § 1, makes it a crime for a person, not within certain specified classes in which the defendant does not contend that she is included, to be 'found in possession' of a 'narcotic drug' except 'by reason of a physician's prescription lawfully and properly issued.' On a complaint charging the commission of that crime on July 29, 1952, at Worcester, the defendant on appeal to the Superior Court was found guilty by a jury, and was sentenced to the reformatory for women. The trial was conducted under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 278, §§ 33A-33G. The only error assigned by the defendant is that the judge denied her motion for a directed verdict of not guilty. She does not contend that she had any prescription from a physician.
At the close of the evidence for the Commonwealth, the defendant rested. The evidence for the Commonwealth may be summarized as follows. On July 28, 1952, a third class package weighing from four to six ounces, wrapped in brown paper, containing four cigarettes, and purporting to have been sent by one Marshall of a certain address in New York City and addressed to the defendant at a hotel in Worcester where she was employed, arrived in the mail from New York at the post office in Worcester in a damaged condition and was there opened and wrapped up again. An unsuccessful attempt to deliver it to the defendant was made on that day, but she was not at the hotel. On the following morning, police officers saw a mail carrier deliver the package to the defendant at the hotel. While she still had the package in her hand unopened, police officers asked her to lead them to a place where they could talk privately. She went with the officers into a bedroom. She said that the package was hers, and that she had received it from the mail carrier. It was still unopened, and in her hand. At the request of the officers, she opened it. As soon as it was opened, she was asked what was in the package, and she said, 'I know what they are.'
A chemist, to whom one of the cigarettes in the package was given for analysis, testified that it contained marijuana.
The defendant denied knowing any person named marshall in New York. The address of a supposed Marshall, written on the package, proved to be a vacant lot.
The question before us is whether the evidence warranted a determination that the defendant was 'found in possession' of the narcotic drug called marijuana. It has been said that one is in possession of a chattel who 'has physical control' of it 'with the intent to exercise such control on his own behalf.' Restatement: Torts, § 216. Before the package was opened the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gilman
...we have taken is followed in most jurisdictions. Massachusetts imposed criminal sanctions on the unaware possessor. Commonwealth v. Lee, 331 Mass. 166, 117 N.E.2d 830 (1954). The Supreme Judicial Court recognized the majority rule but followed the rationale set out in Commonwealth v. Mixer,......
-
Com. v. Antobenedetto
...court has indicated that knowledge by the defendant is not required for a conviction under the relevant statute. Commonwealth v. Lee,331 Mass. 166, 117 N.E.2d 830 (1954). While it might be appropriate to reconsider that holding in the light of Commonwealth v. Buckley, 354 Mass. 508, 238 N.E......
-
Commonwealth v. Mitchell
...control [over an object]" does not require specific knowledge of an object's contents or its nature. See Commonwealth v. Lee, 331 Mass. 166, 168, 117 N.E.2d 830 (1954).1 In his appellate brief, the defendant did not argue that the failure to instruct the jury on the knowledge element of the......
-
Com. v. Aguiar
...does not exist in this case, we need not decide whether a conviction would be affirmed in such a circumstance.7 In Commonwealth v. Lee, 331 Mass. 166, 117 N.E.2d 830 (1954), the defendant received by mail a package containing marihuana cigarettes. Although she had not opened the package, he......