Com. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 12 November 1973 |
| Citation | 303 N.E.2d 132,1 Mass.App.Ct. 545 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Roosevelt SMITH et al. 1 |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Harvey M. Pullman, Boston, for defendants.
Peter F. Brady, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before HALE, C.J., and GRANT and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
The four defendant were each tried, convicted, and sentenced to the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole on four separate indictments charging armed robbery. They are here on an exception to the trial judge's admission in evidence of a sawed-off shotgun, there having been no showing that it was used in the robberies. The defendant Smith is also here on an exception to the denial of his motion (made during the trial) to replace his court-appointed attorney with a black attorney. 2 There was no error.
We summarize from the bill of exceptions the facts which we consider material to the issues raised. At about 5:15 P.M. on May 9, 1970, Mooter's Package Store in Gloucester was held up by three men later identified as the defendants Dillard, Ray, and Smith. The sum of four hundred dollars was taken from the cash register. The wallets of all but one of those present in the store were also taken. Dillard and Smith were carrying handguns. One of the victims observed what he described as a red automobile parked at a street corner about fifty to sixty feet from the store. The victims were made to lie on the floor as the robbers left.
At about 5:40 P.M. Officer Beauparlant of the Gloucester Police Department went to a traffic rotary on Route 128, where several minutes later he saw a red and black Pontiac automobile with one occupant then visible. He gave chase. The Pontiac started moving at a high rate of speed, at times in excess of ninety miles per hour. During the chase Officer Beauparlant observed three black men in the Pontiac. The chase ended at a roadblock in Danvers, where the Pontiac swerved around the backed-up automobiles and 'flipped over', landing right side up. Officer Beauparlant saw Dillard reach for a gun. Dillard was disarmed and handcuffed by another officer. Ray was arrested as he attempted to run away. Smith was under the automobile, and the defendant Fields was 'hanging out of the passenger's side of the car.' Officer Beauparlant took a shotgun, some shotgun shells, a bag of money, and other objects from the car.
The defendant Smith excepted to the admission of the shotgun in evidence. The defendants argue that the admission in evidence of the shotgun impugned their character by suggesting to the jury that each of them was a person of severe and violent criminal predisposition. 3
It is the general rule that weapons found in the possession of a defendant are admissible only if they might have been used in the commission of the crime charged. Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 352 Mass. 218, 229--230, 224 N.E.2d 444 (1967). The purpose of this rule is to forestall the admission of evidence which would give rise to an inference in the minds of the jury 'that a defendant has vicious and dangerous propensities.' Commonwealth v. West, 357 Mass. 245, 248, 258 N.E.2d 22, 24 (1970). In this case, however, the shotgun was properly admitted. The gun was seized from the getaway car after its progress had been stopped by a roadblock and its fleeing occupants had been arrested. Such flight and the possession of a shotgun which could have been used in furthering the defendants' escape were admissible on the issue of guilt. Commonwealth v. Haney, 358 Mass. 304, 306--307, 264 N.E.2d 654 (1970).
At the beginning of the second day of trial Smith's attorney informed the court that his client was not satisfied with his services because he felt that he was not being represented properly. Counsel also informed the court that Smith had asked that he be replaced by a black attorney as only a black attorney could represent Smith properly. This statement was '(c)onstrued as an oral motion presented by the attorney at the request of his client' and was denied. The defendant Smith duly excepted. Smith contends that it was error for the court, having been apprised of the defendant's request to remove his counsel, not to have made inquiry of him as to the reasons for his request. Smith concedes at the outset that, as an indigent defendant, he is not entitled to his choice of counsel (Commonwealth v. Drolet, 337 Mass. 396, 400, 149 N.E.2d 616 (1958)); that he also would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Francis
...appointed counsel, but the alternative is to be represented by himself, or such attorney as he can hire"); Commonwealth v. Smith, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 545, 547–548, 303 N.E.2d 132 (1973) ("an indigent defendant ... is not entitled to his choice of counsel").Moreover, contrary to the court's vie......
-
Com. v. Foley
...916, 88 S.Ct. 250, 19 L.Ed.2d 268 (1967); Commonwealth v. Mendes, 361 Mass. 507, 514, 281 N.E.2d 243 (1972); Commonwealth v. Smith, 1 Mass.App. 545, 547, 303 N.E.2d 132 (1973). There was testimony that the gun used by Foley's companion was a large black automatic pistol which looked like a ......
-
Com. v. Ronayne
...... Commonwealth . Page 353. v. Smith, 1 Mass.App. 545, 547, 303 N.E.2d 132 (1973). Commonwealth v. Gilday, 367 Mass. 474, 496, 327 N.E.2d 851 (1975). Commonwealth v. Sampson, 7 Mass.App. ---, --- H, 378 N.E.2d 1016 (1979). There was ample evidence to warrant a finding that Ronayne either broke and entered the Credit Union with the ......
-
Com. v. Sampson
...approached by the officers, in light of the other circumstances, also tended to indicate his culpability. Commonwealth v. Smith, 1 Mass.App.Ct. 545, 547, 303 N.E.2d 132 (1973). Commonwealth v. Gilday, 367 Mass. 474, 496, 327 N.E.2d 851 (1975). There was ample evidence to warrant a finding t......