Com. v. Moody
| Decision Date | 04 January 1887 |
| Citation | 143 Mass. 177,9 N.E. 511 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. MOODY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
C.J. Brooks and F.F. Heard, for defendant.
Many cases have been decided as to what constitutes duplicity, but they are not of any assistance in deciding the case at bar. They show the considerations which presented themselves to the court in construing other statutes, but beyond that they do not go. The general rule is that two or more crimes cannot be joined in the same count of an indictment. When one count in an indictment charges two offenses, distinct in kind, and requiring distinct punishments, the objection of duplicity has been allowed in arrest of judgment. Com. v. Symonds, 2 Mass. 163; Com. v. Holmes, 119 Mass. 198. In the case at bar, the statute offense consists in keeping the building or room for various distinct and entirely different purposes, each requiring a distinct species of evidence to support or controvert it, and the punishment for each purpose is the same. Each single purpose should be specified in a separate count.
H.N. Shepard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth, cited Acts 1885, c. 342,§ 1; Com. v. Dyer, 128 Mass. 71; Pub.St.Mass. c. 214, § 25; Com. v. Murray, 135 Mass. 530; Com. v. Jenks, 138 Mass. 488; Com. v. Smith, Id. 489; Pub.St.Mass. c. 210, § 1; Id. c. 215, § 20.
1. The objection for want of jurisdiction in the municipal court to try, determine, and punish the offense was waived at the argument. See Com. v. Smith, 138 Mass. 489.
2. The objection on the ground of duplicity cannot be supported. The offense charged is not the registering of a bet, or the selling of a pool, although these are criminal acts, but the keeping of a room for the purpose of doing these things. It makes no difference, in this respect, how many different unlawful or criminal purposes the room was kept for. The offense of keeping it for these various purposes is a single one, and may properly be charged in one count. Com. v. Kimball, 7 Gray, 328, 330.
Judgment for the commonwealth.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Rogers
... ... either section 377 or section 378, and to abet contrary to ... section 390. The offences punished in these sections are ... different, but the conspiracy alleged is one, and properly ... might be allged to intend them all. Com. v ... O'Brien, 12 Cush. 84, 92. Compare Com. v ... Moody, 143 Mass. 177, 9 N.E. 511. It is punishable to ... conspire to ... [181 Mass. 191] ... procure any kind [63 N.E. 425] of unlawful voting, whether it ... be the voting of an unregistered voter or the voting of one ... who had voted in the caucus of another party within a year ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Ferry
...the complaint, but a single offense is charged, and the complaint is not bad for duplicity. Com. v. Brown, 14 Gray, 419-430; Com. v. Moody, 143 Mass. 177, 9 N.E. 511. The same rule answers the objection as to registering and selling pools; each is a stage in the same offense. It is like the......
-
Thrower v. State
...further, but see Bollinger v. Com., 98 Ky. 574, 35 S.W. 553; State v. Stripling, 113 Ala. 120, 21 So. 409, 36 L.R.A. 81; Com. v. Moody, 143 Mass. 177, 9 N.E. 511; Kneffler v. Com., 94 Ky. 359, 22 S.W. 446. v. State, 63 Md. 242, which is contra, was not only by a divided court, but the major......
-
Commonwealth v. Sullivan
...a room for either or both of these purposes is single and is made out if the room is used for either unlawful purpose. Commonwealth v. Moody, 143 Mass. 177, 9 N. E. 511;Commonwealth v. Clancy, 154 Mass. 128, 27 N. E. 1001. A pool has been defined as ‘a combination of stakes the money derive......