Com. v. Manning
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Writing for the Court | Before TAURO; KAPLAN |
Citation | 367 Mass. 605,327 N.E.2d 715 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Leland J. MANNING. |
Decision Date | 07 May 1975 |
Page 715
v.
Leland J. MANNING.
Decided May 7, 1975.
Page 716
[367 Mass. 700] Joan C. Stanley, Boston, for defendant.
Frances M. Burns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before [367 Mass. 699] TAURO, C.J., and QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, HENNESSEY and KAPLAN, JJ.
[367 Mass. 700] KAPLAN, Justice.
Shortly after midnight on July 5, 1966, Donald G. MacVarish, Jr., was stabbed to death in the courtyard of the Church of Saints Peter and Paul on West Broadway in South Boston. The following day, Leland J. Manning was indicted by a grand jury for the first degree murder of MacVarish. 1 On August 1, counsel was appointed by the court to represent the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Manning was kept under observation for a period at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Bridgewater; he was not, however, found incompetent to stand trial. Trial commenced January 16, 1967, but on the morning of January 20, while the prosecution was still presenting its case, the defendant sought permission to change his plea to guilty of murder in the second degree. The judge asked Manning the usual questions: whether he understood fully the nature of the procedure; whether he had had the benefit of counsel; whether the significance of the charges, and the possible penalties, had been explained to him; and whether he pleaded guilty voluntarily and not as the result of any threats or promises. The defendant made appropriate responses, and the trial judge accepted the plea. Manning was twenty-two years of age at the time, and had gone as far as the seventh grade in school. On being sentenced, Manning stated that he was sorry for what had happened, and on further questioning by the judge, he [367 Mass. 701] said he felt he had received a fair trial and was satisfied with the way he had been represented by counsel. He received the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. 2
More than six years later, on September 21, 1973, Manning filed a motion for a new trial. He alleged that he was put under so much pressure to plead guilty by his attorney and by his family on January 20, 1967, that the plea change should be held coerced.
After a hearing on November 30, 1973, at which Manning, his sister, his mother, and his former attorney testified, and at which the transcript of the prior trial and plea change was introduced, the judge denied the motion. Manning appeals, arguing that the evidence proved the coercion, that it was error for the judge at the hearing to strike as irrelevant certain testimony concerning the payment of $1,000 by his family to his trial counsel, and that it was error to exclude certain other evidence.
Page 717
Having before us the judge's findings, rulings and decision, as well as the transcripts of the hearing on the motion and of the original trial, we find the judge's decision to be correct, and hence affirm his denial of a new trial.The transcript of the original trial to the point at which Manning changed his plea reveals that the victim MacVarish, aged seventeen, and a female companion, Marion Benson, were sitting on the front steps of the church at about midnight, sharing a cigarette while on their way to the Broadway M.B.T.A. station from Columbia Stadium, where they had watched a fireworks exhibition. MacVarish was wearing shorts. Manning approached the couple and asked for a match; it appears from the testimony that the parties did not know each [367 Mass. 702] other. MacVarish said that he had a match, and rose to search his pockets for one. After a short period during which Manning said, 'I thought you said you had a match,' and MacVarish replied, 'I'm looking for one,' Manning slapped MacVarish in the face. Miss Benson, the source of the testimony to this point, thereupon fled around the corner of the church. Her further testimony was only that she heard noises and voices. 3
There was additional testimony, however, by one Anne Shyp, who was awakened by the noise from her sleep in a second floor apartment that overlooked the scene. She said she saw three boys, one, in shorts, being held down on the church steps by the two others. The one in shorts, McVarish, managed to get up, knock down the smaller one (Paul F. Hennessey, who had apparently joined Manning), and throw the 'stockier' one (Manning) over his back and into the street. All returned to the sidewalk, and there was some conversation Mrs. Shyp could not hear. Manning threw a punch at MacVarish and missed, whereupon MacVarish punched Manning, Knocking him down again. MacVarish then left, climbing a low wall to the church courtyard and walking across it to the rear. Maning went after him, also walking, while Hennessey stayed somewhat behind. At the rear of the courtyard Manning jumped on MacVarish and there was a tussle. The next thing Mrs. Shyp knew, MacVarish was lying on the ground, and Manning was leaving the yard. A car came along, and Hennessey and Manning got into it and rode away; before he got into the car, Manning yelled, 'He's dead now,' and Mrs. Shyp could see a shiny object in Manning's hand. Although the time of the incident was about midnight, the area was well lit, and Mrs. Shyp could not be shaken [367 Mass....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Edgerly
...Court, Mass.Adv.Sh. (1980) 379 Mass. at --- - --- at 497-498, 401 N.E.2d 360 (footnotes and citations omitted). Commonwealth v. Manning, 367 Mass. 605, 613-614, 327 N.E.2d 715 (1975) (Braucher, J., dissenting) (pointing out that under then existing law "the complaining woman in a rape case ......
-
Commonwealth v. BARBOSA, SJC-10380.
...Carbuccia's fabrication of evidence in evaluating his testimony about the shooting of Serret and himself. See Commonwealth v. Manning, 367 Mass. 605, 607, 328 N.E.2d 496 (1975) (if jury disbelieved important part of witness's testimony, then “this disbelief could quite naturally have led th......
-
Com. v. Simcock, 90-P-1198
...value on the issue of consent." Commonwealth v. Joyce, 382 Mass. 222, 227, 415 N.E.2d 181 (1981). See also Commonwealth v. Manning, 367 Mass. 605, 613-614, 328 N.E.2d 496 (1975) (Braucher, J., dissenting). Exceptions to the proscription have been recognized by our courts in circumstances wh......
-
Com. v. United Food Corp.
...217 Mass. 503, 506, 105 N.E. 378 (1914); Commonwealth v. Manning, 2 Mass.App. 838, 839, 311 N.E.2d 92 (1974), rev'd on other grounds, 367 Mass. 605,327 N.E.2d 715 (1975)), but the admitted evidence was not of this kind. The sources for this evidence were numerous and general. The fact that ......
-
Com. v. Edgerly
...Court, Mass.Adv.Sh. (1980) 379 Mass. at --- - --- at 497-498, 401 N.E.2d 360 (footnotes and citations omitted). Commonwealth v. Manning, 367 Mass. 605, 613-614, 327 N.E.2d 715 (1975) (Braucher, J., dissenting) (pointing out that under then existing law "the complaining woman in a rape case ......
-
Commonwealth v. BARBOSA, SJC-10380.
...Carbuccia's fabrication of evidence in evaluating his testimony about the shooting of Serret and himself. See Commonwealth v. Manning, 367 Mass. 605, 607, 328 N.E.2d 496 (1975) (if jury disbelieved important part of witness's testimony, then “this disbelief could quite naturally have led th......
-
Com. v. Simcock, No. 90-P-1198
...value on the issue of consent." Commonwealth v. Joyce, 382 Mass. 222, 227, 415 N.E.2d 181 (1981). See also Commonwealth v. Manning, 367 Mass. 605, 613-614, 328 N.E.2d 496 (1975) (Braucher, J., dissenting). Exceptions to the proscription have been recognized by our courts in circumstances wh......
-
Com. v. United Food Corp.
...217 Mass. 503, 506, 105 N.E. 378 (1914); Commonwealth v. Manning, 2 Mass.App. 838, 839, 311 N.E.2d 92 (1974), rev'd on other grounds, 367 Mass. 605,327 N.E.2d 715 (1975)), but the admitted evidence was not of this kind. The sources for this evidence were numerous and general. The fact that ......