Commonwealth v. Conlin

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: KNOWLTON
• Citation: 184 Mass. 195,68 N.E. 207
• Decision Date: 19 October 1903
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. CONLIN.

184 Mass. 195
68 N.E. 207

COMMONWEALTH
v.
CONLIN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Berkshire.

Oct. 19, 1903.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Berkshire County; Wm. Schofield, Judge.

Anna Conlin was convicted of drunkenness, and she brings exceptions. Overruled.

John [184 Mass. 196]F. Noxon, Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

P. J. Moore, for defendant.

KNOWLTON, C. J.

At the trial upon this complaint for drunkenness the defendant offered no evidence, but requested the court to rule ‘that upon all the evidence the defendant could not be convicted.’ The court refused so to rule, and instructed the jury ‘that if they were satisfied upon all the evidence that the defendant, when found in this room, was drunk by the voluntary use of intoxicating liquor, she might be convicted under this complaint.’ To the refusal and to the instruction an exception was taken. The evidence tended strongly to show that the defendant was very much intoxicated by the use of whisky at the time of the original arrest, although she was lying upon a couch, and was making no noise or other disturbance. The exception presents the question whether one can be convicted of drunkenness in a private dwelling house, where he is making no disturbance, and is not exposed to public view. This question is answered by the language of Rev. Laws, p. 1791, c. 212, § 39. The offense made punishable by this section is ‘drunkenness by the voluntary use of intoxicating liquor,’ and the place where the offense is committed, whether public or private, is not an element to be considered in determining whether an accused person is guilty under the law. None of the cases relied on by the defendant bear upon the construction of this statute.

[184 Mass. 197]The defendant contends that her arrest without a warrant was illegal, and that, therefore, she could not be convicted upon the complaint. The legality or illegality of the arrest does not in any way affect the offense with which she was charged in the complaint. In Com. v. Tay, 170 Mass. 192, 48 N. E. 1086, it was held that the superior court has jurisdiction on appeal to try upon a complaint for being an idle and disorderly person one arrested without a warrant, whether his arrest was legal or illegal. So here, if the defendant was regularly brought before the court to answer to a complaint for drunkenness which had been duly made and received, it was immaterial upon the question of her guilt whether she had been arrested legally or illegally,...