Commonwealth v. Corcoran

• Decision Date: 23 May 1925
• Citation: 148 N.E. 123,252 Mass. 465
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. CORCORAN. SAME v. DUGGAN et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

252 Mass. 465

148 N.E. 123

COMMONWEALTH

v.CORCORAN.

SAME

v.DUGGAN et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 23, 1925.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; W. H. Whiting, Judge.

William J. Corcoran was convicted of verbally threatening another with accusation of crime with intent to extort money, and Theresa Duggan and another were convicted as accessories before the fact to the same offense. On defendants' exceptions. Exceptions overruled.R. T. Bushnell, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the commonwealth.

J. P. Walsh, of Boston, for defendants.

CROSBY, J.

The defendant in the first case was charged in the first count of the indictment, under G. L. c. 265, § 25, with verbally threatening one Kenneth Merrill to accuse him of the crime of adultery with intent thereby to extort money from said Merrill. The commonwealth relied on the first count only. On the second and third counts, the court directed verdicts for the defendant; he was found guilty on the first count.

In the second case, the defendant Corcoran was charged with the same offence as in the first, and the defendants Theresa Duggan, Lillian H. Reese, Thomas Moran, Theodore Bearse and J. Warren Kane were charged jointly as accessories before the fact to the threatening by Corcoran of Kenneth Merrill to accuse him of the crime of adultery with intent to extort money. The commonwealth relied only on the count in the indictment which charged these defendants with the crime of being accessories before the fact to the crime alleged to have been committed by the defendant Corcoran. The defendant Reese pleaded guilty after the impanelling of the jury; Moran was not present at the trial; Bearse was found not guilty: and the defendants Duggan and Kane were convicted.

The case is before this court on exceptions of the defendants Corcoran, Duggan and Kane. Each filed a motion for a bill of particulars, and specifications were given by the commonwealth.

The commonwealth offered evidence tending to show that the offence was committed in November, 1919 (the exact date did not appear), in an apartment at 88 Hancock street in Cambridge. There was evidence that the apartment was rented by the defendant Kane from Ada Wall in the preceding September; that by previous arrangement between Corcoran and one Harry E. Levenson and the other defendants above named, Merrill was induced to visit the apartment and there enter a bedroom with the defendants Duggan and Reese; that at a certain time by a previously arranged signal, the other defendants charged as accessories entered, and claimed to have detected Merrill in the commission of a crime; that the defendant Corcoran was sent for in accordance with a prearranged scheme and soon afterwards appeared and committed the offence charged. The commonwealth offered evidence to show that the defendant Duggan participated in the crime and assisted Corcoran in enticing Merrill to the apartment; that Kane with others entered it when Merrill was found there; that Kane was employed by Corcoran in his office in 1919 and participated in the plot to entrap Merrill. The defendant Reese, who was called and testified as a witness, was promised immunity by the district attorney if she would testify. Levenson, who was called as a witness by the commonwealth, testified that he was promised immunity in the cases on trial and in certain other cases in another county where he had previously pleaded guilty.

[1] The commonwealth offered evidence to show that for a considerable period of time before the alleged crime was committed the defendants and others, including Levenson, had entered into a general conspiracy to entrap men in compromising situations with women, and when found under such conditions to extort from them money under threat of arrest. Evidence to show such conspiracy and plots was admitted, subject to the exception of the defendants. It is well established that evidence which merely tends to prove that defendants have committed similar offences is not admissible. But evidence tending to show that defendants had entered into a general scheme to extort and defraud substantially by the same means, as appears in the present case, is admissible to show the intent and purpose with which they acted and that the acts charged were part of a common scheme. Commonwealth v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451;Commonwealth v. Scott, 123 Mass. 222, 25 Am. Rep. 81;Commonwealth v. Blood, 141 Mass. 571, 6 N. E. 769;Commonwealth v. Dow, 217 Mass. 473, 480, 105 N. E. 995;Commonwealth v. Farmer, 218 Mass. 507, 106 N. E. 150;Commonwealth v. Riches, 219 Mass. 433, 439, 107 N. E. 371.

The defendant Corcoran and the witness Levenson were attorneys at law, practising in Boston at the time the alleged offence was committed. Levenson testified that he knew the defendant Corcoran, and became acquainted with the defendant Kane in 1916; that he became acquainted with the defendant Duggan in 1912 or 1913; that the defendant Moran was at one time employed as a chauffeur by Corcoran; that at the first conversation he (the witness) had with Corcoran relative to the alleged crime the latter said to him, ‘We had better get an apartment in Middlesex county’; that either he or Corcoran telephoned at that time and asked Mrs. Duggan to come to Corcoran's office; that she came there that day and Corcoran told her to go out and look for an apartment in Cambridge, ‘to find an apartment in some house that was furnished, preferably in the back, with no elevator, and where there was no telephone operator on in front’; that afterwards, as she did not find one, Corcoran told her, ‘we would go out ourselves and look for an apartment’; that Corcoran, Kane, one Rothschild, the witness, and two or three others went to Cambridge to look for an apartment; that they stopped at 88 Hancock street and Corcoran sent Kane to see if there was a vacant apartment; that Kane reported to Corcoran and the witness that there was a good apartment; and that it was left that Kane was to hire it. This witness further testified that the apartment was hired, and that Corcoran or Kane told him that they sent Mrs. Duggan to look it over and gave her money to rent it; that he (Levenson) paid one-half the rent; that after Mrs. Duggan went there Corcoran asked the witness if he knew of any case ‘we could get to work on’; that he told Corcoran that Mrs. Duggan and Mrs. Reese had spoken of a man named Merrill; that Corcoran told him to get the full name and business address of Merrill and said, ‘You can draw a report through the Credit Reporting Agency and I will draw a report through Dun's and if we find him right, why we will take him.’

There was further evidence to show that the witness and Corcoran were subscribers respectively to these two mercantile agencies, and that they obtained reports on the credit and responsibility of Merrill; that Corcoran talked with one Lyons about the reports. The witness testified that later he talked with Corcoran, Mrs. Duggan and Mrs. Reese at Corcoran's office; that Corcoran said to Mrs. Duggan, ‘There is no need of going over this thing with you. You understand it. You have been through it. Go ahead and do the same thing and use your own discretion about the matter’; that Lyons asked Mrs. Reese if she had an ice card at the apartment, and on being told she had he said, ‘When you are ready, or five minutes before you are ready, push the ice card under the door in the hallway and we will come in five minutes later,’ and she answered, ‘All right, Mike. I understand. It's nothing new’; that ‘on the morning of the day of the raid Corcoran told him [Levenson] that Mrs. Reese had telephoned him that they had no liquor at the apartment * * *’; that Corcoran called Kane in and told him to go out to his (Corcoran's) house and get two quarts of liquor and take it to the apartment; and that Kane took the keys and left.

This witness further testified, in substance, that he was told by Corcoran to be at the Copley Square Hotel, as he had arranged with Mrs. Reese and Mrs. Duggan to telephone him (Levenson) just after the raid, and that he would be somewhere in town; that he received a telephone call that night about nine o'clock, at the Copley Square Hotel, from the defendant Moran, as a result of which he went to the apartment at 88 Hancock street; that when he arrived he found Merrill and Corcoran in conference; that Moran, Bearse and Kane were there; and Mrs. Duggan and Mrs. Reese were in the apartment partially dressed; that the following conversation took place:

Moran said to him, ‘We got the goods on Mr. Merrill and Mrs. Duggan, and following your instructions I was going to take them to the station house; but Corcoran here asked me to wait until he could talk the matter over with you, so I telephoned you. * * * Corcoran broke in and said, ‘Well, can't we take this matter up?’ I turned to Merrill and said, ‘Well, they have got the goods on you, haven't they?’ And he said, ‘Yes, they have caught me with the goods.’ * * * ‘But can't this be fixed up somehow?’ * * * Corcoran first said to me, ‘Who do you represent?’ And I said I represented Mrs. Duggan's husband. And he said, ‘Well, what do you want to do about it?’ I said, ‘Well, there is only one thing to do, have them taken to the station house, and if they are convicted,I will see what I have got to do about it afterwards.’ * * * Finally, Mr. Merrill broke in and said, ‘Well, can't I straighten this matter up? What is there to it?’ I said, ‘Well, what do you want to do?’ He left me and went with Corcoran to another room, and they had some conference. Corcoran came back to me, and in the presence of Merrill said, ‘Well, can't we settle this thing?’ I said, ‘Yes, we can settle this.’ Merrill says, ‘I haven't any money.’ I said, ‘That isn't what my men report to me.’ I said, ‘You have been here before, and we have looked you up, and in the report that I get I find that you are a wealthy man.’ He sa...