Commonwealth v. Colangelo
| Decision Date | 01 June 1926 |
| Citation | 256 Mass. 165,152 N.E. 241 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. COLANGELO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Criminal Court, Suffolk County; E. B. Bishop, Judge.
Frank Colangelo was convicted of carnally knowing and abusing a female under the age of 16 years. On his exceptions after verdict. Exceptions overruled.C. G. Smith, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., of Brookline, for the commonwealth.
J. L. Sheehan, of Boston (F. P. Fralli, of Boston, on the brief), for defendant.
[1] These exceptions are without merit. It was a material circumstance that the injured girl made no complaint to her mother immediately after the alleged assault upon her. Evidence to account for this was competent. The question to the daughter with its answers were admitted properly. Commonwealth v. Rollo, 203 Mass. 354, 89 N. E. 556.
[2][3] The testimony of the doctors was rightly admitted. Whether an examination made in April, 1925, was too remote from the time of the alleged assault about Thanksgiving in 1924, was for the trial judge to decide. Commonwealth v. Reagan, 175 Mass. 335, 56 N. E. 577,78 Am. St. Rep. 496. We cannot say he was wrong in admitting the evidence.
[4] The statement that the intercourse had taken place around Thanksgiving was not admissible as proof of the fact, and could not be introduced to establish the fact in the form of testimony by a physician to what a patient or subject for examination had told him. Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 195 Mass. 100, 80 N. E. 799,11 Ann. Cas. 217. Nor was it admissible as a fresh complaint. Commonwealth v. Cleary, 172 Mass. 175, 51 N. E. 746. The judge instructed the jury when it was admitted that the girl's statementto the physician in regard to what happened to her was not evidence as to whether the defendant did anything to her or not. The statements were admissible as a basis for the physician's opinion upon the condition of her body. Barber v. Merriam, 11 Allen, 322;Commonwealth v. Smith, 213 Mass. 563, 100 N. E. 1010. We cannot assume that the jury disregarded the judge's instruction. Commonwealth v. Ham, 150 Mass. 122, 22 N. E. 704.
[5] No question of law is presented by the denial of the motion for a new trial.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. O'Connor
...opinion to which he testified. Commonwealth v. Howard, 355 Mass. 526, 529, 246 N.E.2d 419 (1969), overruling Commonwealth v. Colangelo, 256 Mass. 165, 166-167, 152 N.E. 241 (1926). The testimony was correctly ( c) Also as a part of his argument on the bifurcated trial issue, the defendant c......
-
State v. Koch, 2380
... ... to the admissibility. 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence 587 ... (11th Ed.); Commonwealth v. Colangelo, 256 Mass ... 165, 152 N.E. 241; State v. Smith, 46 Idaho 8, 265 ... Testimony ... as to general reputation of the ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Belenski
...was before the doctor, and which served as the basis of the opinion he then formed. This instruction was proper. Commonwealth v. Colangelo, 256 Mass. 165–167, 152 N. E. 241. We do not understand that Dr. Halloran's opinion was based on the opinion of Dr. Myerson, one of the examining expert......
-
Glover v. Callahan
...152 N.E. 746, 747. Such a witness has the right to offer evidence explaining why an earlier complaint was not made, Commonwealth v. Colangelo, 256 Mass. 165, 152 N.E. 241, and her testimony may be discredited if she fails to give a satisfactory reason for the absence of such complaint. Wher......