Com. v. McGrath
| Decision Date | 28 January 1971 |
| Citation | 266 N.E.2d 679,358 Mass. 814 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Harry L. McGRATH. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Reuben Goodman, Boston (Alexander Whiteside, II, Boston, with him) for defendant.
Jack I. Zalkind, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before TAURO, C.J., and CUTTER, SPIEGEL, REARDON and QUIRICO, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
This indictment charges the defendant and others with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, a shoe. The indictment was tried before a jury together with indictments charging robbery and assault with intent to rape. The defendant was found guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and not guilty of robbery. He was found guilty of so much of the indictment charging assault with intent to rape as charged simple assault, and the indictment was placed on file. The case is here on the defendant's exceptions. He claims it was error to exclude from evidence the police journal which he offered to impeach the victim's testimony 'by prior inconsistent statements.' She had testified that she knew the defendant and one of the codefendants and had met another codefendant on the day in question. The police journal stated that she had been assaulted by 'three unknown white males.' However, police Sergeant Celona was called as a witness by a codefendant and was questioned by the defendant. He testified that he conducted the investigation and had talked with the victim on the night in question; that 'she wasn't in a condition to describe coherently what actually took place regarding the attack'; that she did not give him 'the names of any of the people involved' or 'any indication as to whether they were known or unknown to her.' He also stated that the entry in the journal was made by another police sergeant who had reduced to writing 'a report' by Celona. Even if we assume that it was error to exclude the journal, it would have been merely cumulative and its exclusion was not prejudicial. See Commonwealth v. Palladino, 346 Mass. 720, 722--723, 195 N.E.2d 769. The defendant's other contention is that it was error to admit the testimony of a person to whom the victim had spoken shortly after the alleged attack. The defendant argues that this 'was hearsay and admissible neither as res gestae of the attack nor as fresh complaint.' The victim testified to substantially the same facts. We are of opinion that the testimony objected to was merely cumulative and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. O'Connor
...testimony, does not constitute reversible error. Commonwealth v. Izzo, 359 Mass. 39, 43, 267 N.E.2d 631 (1971). Commonwealth v. McGrath, 358 Mass. 814, 815, 266 N.E.2d 679 (1971). Commonwealth v. Mannos, 311 Mass. 94, 115, 40 N.E.2d 291 (1942). Commonwealth v. Lagacy, 23 Mass.App.Ct. 622, 6......
-
Com. v. Shelley
... ... At trial, former defense counsel asked the judge to insert the word, "only," so that the instruction would read, "if you further find that only by reason of and because of his voluntary use of alcohol ... " Having taken his instruction almost verbatim from Commonwealth v. McGrath, 358 Mass. 314, 320, 266 N.E.2d 679 (1970), the judge refused to make the change. Former defense counsel excepted without further argument ... We do not think that the request to insert the word "only" raised more than the merest shadow of the argument now put forward. As we ... ...
-
Com. v. Lund
...have found had been made to the victim's physician on the fourth day following the incident. See and compare Commonwealth v. McGrath, 358 Mass. 814, 815, 266 N.E.2d 679 (1971); Commonwealth v. Izzo, 359 Mass. at 43, 267 N.E.2d 631; Commonwealth v. Bettencourt, 361 Mass. at 519, 281 N.E.2d 2......
- Com. v. Teta