Com. v. Penta
| Decision Date | 11 May 1972 |
| Citation | 361 Mass. 894,282 N.E.2d 674 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Richard M. PENTA. |
James F. Freeley, Jr., Boston, for defendant.
Robert H. Quinn, Atty. Gen., and Edward W. Kirk, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
Before TAURO, C.J., and CUTTER, SPIEGEL, REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, and HENNESSEY, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
In 1967, Commonwealth v. Penta, 352 Mass. 271, 274--276, 225 N.E.2d 58, dealt with the sufficiency of three affidavits as basis for issuing separate warrants to search a garage. We held the first affidavit did not comply with G.L. c. 276, § 2B, as amended, because it showed no basis for the affiant's knowing facts asserted in the affidavit. We suppressed evidence obtained under the first warrant. The second and third affidavits (see pp. 275--276, 225 N.E.2d 58) in terms were adequate. We did not suppress the evidence seized under the resulting warrants. Our 1967 decision led Penta to discover that the second and third warrants (and affidavits) were based upon knowledge obtained during the illegal search under the first warrant. Penta made no such contention in his 1967 appeal from conviction. Penta then sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court which was dismissed without prejudice because Penta had not exhausted his State court remedies. Penta then sought a rehearing in this court. Before passing upon his request, we directed (September 9, 1971) that there be a new evidentiary hearing before a Superior Court judge upon a motion for a new trial. This was done. The judge assigned to hear the matter (the trial judge having retired) has found (1) that the second and third warrants were issued on the basis of the affiant's knowledge obtained by the illegal search, and (2) that Penta's conduct did not amount to a waiver of any of his constitutional assertions. The case now comes to us upon what is, in effect, a report by the judge who heard the motion for new trial. Although Penta at trial and in his 1967 appeal should have made his present contentions (see Commonwealth v. Johnson, 352 Mass. 311, 318, 225 N.E.2d 360), his failure was probably because his counsel expected that all the warrants would be held invalid, or none of them. If the matter had been suitably raised in 1967 (although the evidence in no way suggests Penta's freedom from guilt), his convictions probably would have been set aside. In the confused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Forde
...Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484--488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Commonwealth v. Penta,--- Mass. ---, --- n, 282 N.E.2d 674 (1972). Commonwealth v. Hall, --- Mass. ---, --- o, 323 N.E.2d 319 (1975). It follows that the judgments of the Superior Court must be So ordered......
-
United States v. Penta, No. 72-1331.
...motor vehicles, on the basis that some of the evidence introduced resulted from an illegal search and seizure. Commonwealth v. Penta, 1972 Mass.Adv.Sh. 1015, 282 N.E.2d 674.1 Since these convictions had been used in the 1970 federal trial to impeach appellant's credibility, he moved for a n......
-
Com. v. Fiore
...717 (1975), citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 415-17, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Commonwealth v. Penta, 361 Mass. 894, 895, 282 N.E.2d 674 (1972), and Commonwealth v. Hall, 36(6) Mass. 790, 795, 323 N.E.2d 319 (1975). The issue, otherwise put, is the applicab......
- Case of Corraro