Commonwealth v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 24 April 1925 |
| Citation | 147 N.E. 552,252 Mass. 241 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. COLEMAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Frederick Lawton, Judge.
Henry Coleman was convicted of using a motor vehicle without authority, in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24. On defendant's exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
In prosecution, under G. L. c. 90, s 24, for use of motor vehicle without authority, commonwealth must prove, not only use, but lack of authority.
Evidence held sufficient to justify denial of directed verdict in prosecution for use of motor vehicle without authority, under G. L. c. 90, s 24.
Wrongful intent is not part of offense of using motor vehicle without authority, defined by G. L. c. 90, s 24, and mere passive invited guest, who rides in machine, believing person in control has authority to use it, may be guilty of unlawful use without authority.
Arthur K. Reading, Dist. Atty., R. T. Bushnell, Asst. Dist. Atty., and A. Leonard, Asst. Dist. Atty., all of Boston, for the Commonwealth.
P. J. Delaney and G. C. Strong, both of Boston, for defendant.
The defendant was found guilty upon an indictment under G. L. c. 90, § 24, charging, in the words of the statute, that he and one Kelley ‘did use a motor vehicle without authority.’
When arrested, about 2 o'clock in the morning of May 28, 1924, he was seated in a Reo truck which had disappeared from the garage of the owner between the evening of May 27 and the morning of May 28. The owner testified that he had not given authority to the defendant or to any one else to use it. The defendant's story at that time was that he and his companion had accepted an invitation to ride in the truck given by a man they did not know, who, after driving them some distance, had asked Kelley to take the truck and do an errand. He and Kelley had gone on the errand unsuccessfully, and were riding about afterward, when the police interfered. He had not at any time operated the truck himself.
[1][2] The judge could not take the case from the jury. The burden was on the commonwealth to prove not only ‘use’ by the defendant but also that it was ‘without authority.’ Nevertheless, the evidence of the position in which the defendant was found, of the story told by him, and of the owner of the truck, with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom were enough, if believed, to sustain that burden. The motion for a directed verdict was denied properly.
The defendant requested the judge to rule:
‘(1) If the jury finds that the defendant got on the Reo truck at the invitation of a person whom the defendant believed had a right to extend the invitation, and thereafter rode in the truck as a passenger, the verdict must be not guilty.
‘(2) If the jury finds that the defendant rode in the Reo truck in good faith, the verdict must be not guilty.
‘(3) The defendant might ride in the Reo truck, even though he knew it had been misappropriated by another, and if the jury finds that he did so ride, and if they find that the Reo truck was misappropriated, the verdict must be not guilty.
‘(4) On all the evidence the verdict must be not guilty.’
[3] These requests do not state the law. The ‘use’ condemned by the statute includes use by a passenger. One uses a machine if he rides in it, although he rides as a passive invited guest. It is not necessary that there be active control or operation of the machine on his part. The use may be ‘without authority,’ although one is innocent of guilty intent and ignorant of the lack of authority to use the vehicle on the part of the person in control. Whoever uses a motor vehicle must actually be authorized to do so if he is to stand guiltless under this statute. Mere belief, however honest, in the authority of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Crosscup
...decisions the Legislature amended the statutes so as to require proof of elements of intent or negligence. See Commonwealth v. Coleman, 252 Mass. 241, 147 N.E. 552 (1925) (unauthorized use of motor vehicle; cf. St.1926, c. 253); Commonwealth v. Pentz, 247 Mass. 500, 143 N.E. 322 (1924) (dri......
-
Commonwealth v. Campbell
...by the owner of a vehicle or “by one who in law possesses the right of control ordinarily vested in the owner.” Commonwealth v. Coleman, 252 Mass. 241, 243, 147 N.E. 552 (1925).10 Accord Instruction 5.660 of the Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court (2009). In Commo......
-
Com. v. Wallace
...knowledge for the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, thus rejecting the strict liability made possible by Commonwealth v. Coleman, 252 Mass. 241, 147 N.E. 552 (1925). See Commonwealth v. Kraatz, 2 Mass.App. at 200, 310 N.E.2d 368. This court, in Kraatz, at 201-202, 310 N.E.2d 368, require......
-
Watson Seafood & Poultry Co., Inc. v. George W. Thomas, Inc.
...to endanger the safety or lives of public); Commonwealth v. Vartanian, 251 Mass. 355, 146 N.E. 682 (1925). Accord: Commonwealth v. Coleman, 252 Mass. 241, 147 N.E. 552 (1925) (using a motor vehicle without the authority of the owner) ('the act irrespective of intent was made criminal,' Id. ......