Com. v. Ryan

Citation355 Mass. 768,247 N.E.2d 564
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. William F. RYAN et al.
Decision Date02 May 1969
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Paul J. Burns, Boston, for defendant Ryan.

Willie J. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

Robert A. Stanziani, Boston, for defendant Reppucci, submitted a brief.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER and KIRK, JJ.

SPALDING, Justice.

These are appeals under G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G. The defendant William F. Ryan appeals from convictions under indictments charging larceny, conspiracy and a violation of G.L. c. 268, § 6A. 1 The defendant Carmen Reppucci appeals from convictions under indictments charging larceny, receiving stolen goods, and conspiracy.

THE RYAN CASE.

The evidence showed that Ryan was in charge of the supply room for the Division of Employment Security (division) of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Data-processing cards were stored in the supply room. Ryan, among others, had keys and access to this room. Inventory cards were maintained there for the purpose of determining the number of each type of data-processing card on hand at a given time. In January, 1967, a requisition was sent to the supply room for seven cases of a certain type of data-processing card. Although the inventory card showed that fifty-two cases should have been on hand, only four cases could be found. A subsequent audit of the supply room showed that more than 2,700 cases were missing.

Mrs. Delores Bisbee, a former employee of the division, testified in an oral deposition introduced in evidence that data-processing cards ordinarily would be delivered from the supply room only if there was a requisition for them. A typed copy of a requisition order with handwritten additions was introduced. Mrs. Bisbee testified, subject to Ryan's exception, that the additions were in Ryan's handwriting. The cards represented by these additions were never received or authorized by the requisition party. Ryan was further connected to the theft of the cards by evidence that he and two other men were seen loading cartons of data-processing cards onto a truck which had 'Reppucci Brothers' appearing on it.

1. Ryan argues that no sufficient foundation was laid for Mrs. Bisbee's identification of his handwriting. After she stated she could identify the handwriting on the copy of the requisition slip, the following occurred. Q. 'Mrs. Bisbee, how long did you say you worked with William Ryan?' A. 'Since December of '63.' Q. 'And during that time, did you have an occasion to observe his handwriting?' A. 'Yes, I did.' Q. 'And I ask you, Mrs. Bisbee, if you saw his handwriting, would you be able to identify it?' A. 'Yes.' She then testified that the additions on the copy of the requisition slip were in Ryan's handwriting. The cross-examination of the witness on this issue was as follows: Q. 'Now, I understand your testimony that Mr. Ryan, at one time you believed you saw what was his handwriting?' A. 'Yes, sir.' Q. 'Was that in pencil or in writing?' A. 'Ink.' Q. 'That was his job as your supervisor, to supervise your work?' A. 'Yes.' Q. 'And on occasions, he made entries also, just as Charley or Frank Castro made writings on paper?' A. 'He would--if it was getting behind and I wasn't in, he might have worked on my cards too, yes.'

A witness who is familiar with a person's handwriting may give an opinion as to whether the specimen in question was written by that person. Noyes v. Noyes, 224 Mass. 125, 130, 112 N.E. 850. Whether a witness is qualified to give such an opinion is a question, in the first instance for the judge. Nunes v. Perry, 113 Mass. 274, 276, 'In all questions of this nature the ruling at the trial will be sustained, unless it is made clearly to appear that it was based upon some erroneous view of legal principles, or that the ruling was not justified by the state of the evidence as presented to the judge at the time.' Nunes v. Perry, supra, 276. We are of opinion that a sufficient foundation was laid for Mrs. Bisbee's identification of Ryan's handwriting. It is true that a witness who has been someone's handwriting only once ordinarily would not be qualified to give an opinion. See Noyes v. Noyes, supra, 125, 112 N.E. 850. But Mrs. Bisbee's answers, when read in conjunction with her answers on cross-examination, together with the fact that she had worked with Ryan for more than three years, strongly suggest that she had seen Ryan's handwriting more than once. The court did not err in admitting her testimony.

2. The remaining assignments of error may be disposed of briefly. Ryan complains (second and third assignments of error) that he was unduly restricted in cross-examination. The point raised by the second assignment did not amount to prejudicial error even if, as we need not decide, the questions were improperly excluded. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 342 Mass. 180, 187--188, 172 N.E.2d 597. As to the rulings challenged by the third assignment, the short answer is that they were not excepted to by Ryan. The other assignments (including one relating to the denial of the motion for directed verdicts, which has not been argued 2) do not merit discussion.

THE REPPUCCI CASE.

In addition to the evidence that Ryan and two other men were seen loading cartons of data-processing cards onto a truck with 'Reppucci Brothers' appearing on it, the evidence against Reppucci was as follows. The cards which were discovered missing were prepared especially for the division and contained the words 'Massachusetts Division of Employment Security' on the left-hand side. These cards were prepared for no other purchaser. Cartons of these cards were found in Boston in the possession of three business concerns, one of which was Biz-Matic Data Centers, Inc. (Biz-Matic...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Com. v. Porter
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • February 17, 1983
    ...v. Peopcik, 251 Mass. 369, 371, 146 N.E. 661 (1925). Commonwealth v. Kelley, 333 Mass. at 195, 129 N.E.2d 900. Commonwealth v. Ryan, 355 Mass. 768, 773, 247 N.E.2d 564 (1969). Commonwealth v. Sandler, 368 Mass. 729, 741-742, 335 N.E.2d 903 (1975). Commonwealth v. Burns, 388 Mass. 178, 180, ......
  • Com. v. Sandler
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1975
    ... ... See also the following cases involving the charge of larceny. Commonwealth v. Torrealba, 316 Mass. 24, 29, 54 N.E.2d 939 (1944). Commonwealth v. Brant, 346 Mass. 202, 205, 190 N.E.2d 900 (1963). Commonwealth v. Wilbur, 353 Mass. 376, 384--385, 231 N.E.2d 919 (1967). Commonwealth v. Ryan, 355 ... Page 912 ... Mass. 768, 773, 247 N.E.2d 564 (1969). Although the defendant testified at his trial, he made no explanation of how he came into possession of the stolen merchandise. Instead he denied that he ever had possession of it ...         The defendant contends that ... ...
  • Com. v. O'Connell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 12, 2003
    ...a person's handwriting may give an opinion as to whether the specimen in question was written by that person." Commonwealth v. Ryan, 355 Mass. 768, 770-771, 247 N.E.2d 564 (1969). The question of a witness's qualifications to give such testimony is committed to the sound discretion of the t......
  • Com. v. Settipane
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • October 24, 1977
    ...v. Wilbur, 353 Mass. 376, 384, 231 N.E.2d 919 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1010, 88 S.Ct. 1260, 20 L.Ed.2d 161 (1968). Commonwealth v. Ryan, 355 Mass. 768, 773 (1969). Commonwealth v. Smith, 3 Mass.App. ---, --- h, 324 N.E.2d 924 (1975). Commonwealth v. Obshatkin, 2 Mass.App. at 3 i, 307 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT