Com. v. Sullivan

• Decision Date: 05 March 1894
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. SULLIVAN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

161 Mass. 59

36 N.E. 583

COMMONWEALTH v. SULLIVAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

March 5, 1894

First exception: "At the trial, one Ellen Sullivan, a witness for the government, was asked, on cross-examination by defendant's counsel: "Were you ever in jail in Essex county?" The presiding judge refused to allow the question to be answered unless the record of a conviction of said Ellen Sullivan should be produced. The defendant's counsel thereupon replied that he had no such record to produce, and the question was excluded, to which ruling the defendant excepted.

COUNSEL

Fred N. Wier, for the Commonwealth.

Peter A. Fay, for defendant.

OPINION

FIELD, C.J.

The first exception was not argued by the counsel for the defendant. The ruling excepted to was clearly correct. Com. v. Quin, 5 Gray, 478. The exceptions recite as follows: "The judge, in charging the jury, among other things made use of this expression: That the jury might take into consideration the fact whether the defendant had opportunity to commit said crime,--and gave full instructions on all other points of the case. At the close of the judge's charge the defendant's counsel asked that the further instruction be given to the jury that, if any one else had opportunity to commit said crime, that fact should be considered by the jury in her favor. The judge refused so to rule," etc. For aught that appears, full and appropriate instructions already had been given on this subject, and the presiding justice may have thought that the request was made for the purpose of having him put special emphasis upon this feature of the case at the close of the charge. Exceptions overruled.