Commonwealth v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 24 February 1892
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. CAMPBELL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

155 Mass. 537

30 N.E. 72

COMMONWEALTH

v.CAMPBELL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Feb. 24, 1892.

Exceptions from superior court, Suffolk county; DANIEL W. BOND, Judge.

Indictment against James Campbell for larceny of moneys and promissory notes from one Wright. Wright testified that on the day of October 4, 1889, he went to a bank to deposit moneys, and laid his bankbook, with moneys and notes, on the counter; that a man, whom he swore he was positive was defendant, came up to him, and had some talk with him; that the conversation lasted about two minutes; that the man left, and, upon turning around, he missed his moneys. He swore that the man on the 4th day of October, 1889, at that time had side-whiskers and a mustache. He swore that he did not identify the man in any other way than by his face. Another witness, cashier of the bank, testified to seeing the man speaking to Wright, and swore that defendant was the man; and both witnesses swore that they did not see defendant before the 4th of October, 1889, nor since, until about the time of the trial. The government further offered to show the condition of defendant's face at the time of his arrest, and what he did after knowing upon what charge he was arrested. It asked a witness, (Knox,) “What was the condition of his face at the time of his arrest at Bennington, August, 1891?” Defendant objected, on the ground that it was too long after the date of the offense charged. The court ruled the testimony in, to which defendant excepted. Another witness, Mr. Watts, inspector of police, witness for the government, on direct examination was asked if, since his arrest, he had a conversation with the defendant, and testified that he did. The government asked the witness to state the subject of the conversation. Witness answered that the subject of the conversation was in relation to this matter, and of his arrest in a bank case before. The district attorney produced “two photographs,” claimed to have been taken in 1887, before the date named in the indictment, and showed them to the witness, and asked the witness if he showed the pictures at that time to the defendant. Watts testified that he did. District attorney then put the question, “What was said in regard to this picture?” showing a picture taken in 1887. Counsel for defendant objected on the ground that, the picture having been taken two years before date of offense, it was too remote; it would not be competent to show what the condition of his face was on the day of offense. Court overruled objection, and exception was taken. The photographs were not at this stage of the case offered in evidence, but were produced, and the witness examined, for the purpose of laying the foundation for future identification. The government offered, by the same witness, conversations had with the defendant. Counsel for the defendant objected, on the ground that only such matter as pertained to the alleged crime could be put in in the way of conversation. The court ruled the whole conversation should go in, to which counsel for the defendant excepted. “My conversation with him in regard to this was this, so far as I can recollect: I told him I had a fine picture of him taken with side-whiskers. He said, ‘I guess not.’ He said, ‘I never had a picture in my life taken with side-whiskers.’ I said, ‘I will go and get the picture and show it to you. It was taken in Fitchburg. You were arrested by a detective in one of the national banks there. At the time you were arrested this picture was taken of you.’ He said, ‘I did not think you had this picture.’ I said, ‘I have got another of you.’ He said, ‘Another one?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘That was taken at Ravenna, Ohio. Yourself and two others were arrested, and the other two were sent to prison, and you forfeited your bail;’ and he said, ‘Yes, that was taken at that time.’ He has an alias, ‘Shang.’ When he was brought into the office I said, ‘Hello, Campbell, you know what you were brought here for.’ He said, ‘I have been told.’ I said, ‘You have changed somewhat in your appearance. You have a smooth face, and the last time I saw a picture it was with side-whiskers.’ I went on to say about this picture being taken in Fitchburg. After that conversation I said, ‘You have been a pretty fortunate man in your life.’ He said, ‘How is that?’ I told him he had; he had been a pretty fortunate man. He said, ‘Why?’ I said, ‘In a number of cases you have put up your bail, and forfeited it, and never been punished for the crime you committed. You were arrested out in Ravenna, Ohio, with two noted thieves,-arrested for larceny from the person. You put up $1,000, and jumped your bail. The...