Com. v. Morrissey
| Decision Date | 27 February 1900 |
| Citation | 175 Mass. 264,56 N.E. 285 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. MORRISSEY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
C. L. Gardner, Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
P. J. Moore, for defendant.
The defendant was indicted for adultery with Bridget Lee. At the trial it appeared that at the trial of a complaint for bastardy made by the said Bridget Lee, who was a single woman, and had been delivered of an illegitimate child, against one Curry, charged with being the father of the child, in which the issue was whether Curry was the father of the child, this present defendant, being duly sworn as a witness, testified that on three several occasions (one being the day named in the indictment), at Hinsdale, in the county of Berkshire, he had carnal knowledge of the body of the said Lee, and that he was on all such occasions a married man. It is to be assumed that this evidence was there introduced to show that by reason of such sexual intercourse there might be a doubt as to whether the defendant in that suit was the father of the child, since that was the ground upon which such evidence was admissible; and this testimony could throw doubt upon that issue only upon the theory that the conception of the child might have occurred as the result of such intercourse. As to these facts there does not seem to have been any dispute. Since the woman was delivered of an illegitimate child, the natural inference is that she had had sexual intercourse with a man. There was evidence, therefore, that a crime had been committed,--fornication or adultery, according as the man was single or married at the time. The evidence lacking was simply as to the identity of the man, and that evidence was furnished by the confession of the defendant. Under these circumstances, the question whether it was competent to convict upon an uncorroborated confession was an abstract one, not raised upon the evidence, and on which the court was not required to express an opinion. The undisputed facts were sufficient corroboration, if any was needed. Com. v. Tarr, 4 Allen, 315; Com. v. McCann, 97 Mass. 580. Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Negus v. Foote
...the offer of proof which was excluded, evidence that his wife had been delivered of a child tended to prove the offense. Com. v. Morrissey, 175 Mass. 264, 56 N. E. 285. See Com. v. Gray, 129 Mass. 474, 37 Am. Rep. 378. But if no evidence had been introduced from which in connection with the......
-
Commonwealth v. Killion
... ... conviction does not seem to have been expressly decided in ... this state. In the three cases relied on by the commonwealth ... (Com. v. Tarr, 4 Allen, 315; Com. v ... McCann, 97 Mass. 580; Com. v. Morrissey, 175 ... Mass. 264, 56 N.E. 285) there was corroborative evidence, and ... ...
-
Negus v. Foote
...532. The case of Commonwealth v. O'Connor, 107 Mass. 219 , on which the defendant relies is clearly distinguishable. Compare Commonwealth v. Morrissey, 175 Mass. 264 The evidence should have been admitted, and the exceptions must be sustained. So ordered. ...
-
Commonwealth v. Kimball
...v. McCann, 97 Mass. 580 , 582; Commonwealth v. Sanborn, 116 Mass. 61 , 62, 64; Commonwealth v. Holt, 121 Mass. 61, 63; Commonwealth v. Morrissey, 175 Mass. 264 , 265; Commonwealth v. Killion, 194 Mass. 153 , Commonwealth v. Zelenski, 287 Mass. 125, 130. There was no error in the rulings of ......