Commonwealth v. Cohen
| Decision Date | 25 November 1919 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. COHEN et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; William F. Dana, Judge.
Samuel Cohen and another were convicted of breaking and entering a building in the nighttime to commit larceny, and of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen, respectively, and they except. Exceptions sustained.
Henry P. Fielding, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Dorchester, for the commonwealth.
Herbert F. Callahan, of Boston (John F. Barry, of Boston, on the brief), for defendants.
The defendants, Cohen and Solomon, in January, 1917, were tried in the superior court on an indictment in two counts-the first, charging them with breaking and entering a building in the nighttime with intent to commit larceny and that they did steal certain property described in the indictment; the second, with receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. The jury returned a verdict of guilty against Cohen on the first count, and against Solomon on the second count.
At the trial the defendant Solomon ‘testified to material evidence in behalf of himself and the defendant Cohen which was offered by the defense for the purpose of establishing their innocence.’ During the cross-examination of the defendant Solomon the assistant district attorney offered, and the court admitted, two records of his conviction in the superior court-one, dated September 18, 1918, for violating a regulation of the board of street commissioners of the city of Boston; and the other, dated October 25, 1912, for keeping a house of ill fame. These records were admitted for the purpose of affecting his credibility as a witness. St. 1914, c. 406. The second record was admitted subject to the exception of the defendants.
The offense of keeping a house of ill fame is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years. R. L. c. 212, § 19. A felony is defined by statute as follows:
The minimum term of imprisonment in the state prison is for not less than 2 1/2 years. R. L. c. 220, § 20. It follows that the offense of keeping a house of ill fame is a misdemeanor. No question is raised as to the admissibility of the record of the conviction of September 18, 1918.
Under R. L. c. 175, § 21, it was provided that--
‘The conviction of a witness of a crime may be shown to affect his credibility.’
Under this statute the conviction of a witness of any crime was admissible, whether it was of an offense which was a felony or a misdemeanor, and without reference to the time when such conviction occurred.
The Legislature by St. 1913, c. 81, amended the statute by striking out section 21 of R. L. c. 175, and inserting in place thereof a new section, which provided in substance that the conviction of a witness of a felony might be shown (as formerly) to affect his credibility; but it also provided that the conviction of a witness of a misdemeanor should not be admissible to affect his credibility--
‘unless the conviction was obtained within the period of five years prior to the time of his testifying, or unless there has been a subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hawthorne
...The Massachusetts statute, which initially read like ours, was amended to contain a time limitation. See Commonwealth v. Cohen, 234 Mass. 76, 125 N.E. 148 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1919).2 Luck does not mention an earlier opinion of the same court which holds that age bears on weight and not on admissibi......
-
Com. v. Gosselin
...and the offence charged was a misdemeanor. G.L. c. 268, § 16A (fn. 1, supra); c. 274, § 1; c. 279, § 24. Commonwealth v. Cohen, 234 Mass. 76, 77, 125 N.E. 148 (1919). The case is therefore not subject to G.L. c. 278, § 12, relating to included offences. Both parties have assumed in argument......
-
Muniz v. Mehlman
...liquor) are misdemeanors. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 274, § 1; c. 90, § 24, as amended; c. 272, § 48; c. 279, § 24. See Commonwealth v. Cohen, 234 Mass. 76, 77, 125 N.E. 148. 'A peace officer, in the absence of statute * * * may arrest without warrant for a misdemeanor which (1) involves a breach of ......
- In re Goff