Com. v. Russell
| Decision Date | 20 October 1893 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. RUSSELL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
F.A. Gaskill, for the Commonwealth.
John R Thayer and Arthur P. Rugg, for defendant.
The only questions raised by the bill of exceptions relate to the admission of evidence. On a search for liquors in the defendant's premises were found two soda glasses, wet with whisky, and a bottle partly filled with whisky, on a table, and in the same room a jug filled with whisky in a barrel partly filled with sawdust. On the floor in another room were a dozen empty whisky bottles and fifty or more corks, while in the cellar under the defendant's store were three kegs containing liquors. Each of these articles found in the defendant's possession might have some significance on the question whether the defendant was keeping intoxicating liquors with intent to sell them unlawfully. The commonwealth put in evidence the defendant's statement, in reply to a question, that the bottle containing whisky found with the glasses was his, and that he had it for his own use. The defendant then sought to introduce in his own favor his statement, made immediately afterwards, while in the same room, in regard to the jug found in the barrel; and, it appearing that in the next room a question was asked him in regard to the corks, to which he answered that they must have worked through the door from the adjoining drugstore, he sought to introduce his answers to questions put to him immediately before in regard to the bottles found on the floor. Each of these declarations was excluded by the court on the ground that it did not appear to be a part of the same conversation with the answers introduced by the commonwealth. The testimony admitted tended to show that the bottle found on the table and the corks found on the floor of the next room were distinct subjects of inquiry by the searching officer, and the defendant's answer to each of these inquiries was thought to have some significance in connection with the other evidence. The commonwealth did not offer his declarations in regard to any other matters than these two. The defendant had a right to put in evidence anything which he said as a part of the same conversation that would tend to explain or qualify these answers, but he had no right to use his declarations in his own favor in regard to distinct and independent subjects of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Crowe
...were of a kindred character and related to the same general issue." Id. at 827, 388 N.E.2d 680, quoting from Commonwealth v. Russell, 160 Mass. 8, 10, 35 N.E. 84 (1893). Here the statements that were excluded, while made at the same time as the admitted statement, did not furnish an explana......
-
Com. v. Watson
...similar language was used in Commonwealth v. Britland, 300 Mass. 492, 496-497, 15 N.E.2d 657 (1938). In Commonwealth v. Russell, 160 Mass. 8, 9-10, 35 N.E. at 84 (1893), the Commonwealth introduced evidence that the defendant acknowledged that a bottle containing whiskey and some glasses we......
-
Commonwealth v. Helfman
...of a single conversation with the defendant. His finding in this respect on the present record is not open to review. Commonwealth v. Russell, 160 Mass. 8, 10, 35 N. E. 84. Substantially all of the letter related directly or indirectly to the complaint on which the defendant was being tried......
-
Coghlan v. White
...England Railroad, 179 Mass. 242, 246, 60 N. E. 581; of the point whether oral statements are part of one conversation, Commonwealth v. Russell, 160 Mass. 8, 35 N. E. 84; of the point whether declarations were made with the consciousness and in view of impending death, Commonwealth v. Reagan......