Commonwealth v. Cronin
| Decision Date | 24 November 1926 |
| Citation | 257 Mass. 535,154 N.E. 176 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. CRONIN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Report from Superior Criminal Court, Suffolk County; L. S. Cox, Judge.
Lawrence P. Cronin was convicted of assault and battery with intent to rape, of assault and battery with a pistol, of assault and battery, and of larceny. On report, Judgment on verdict.
Criminal law k184-Dismissing jury because remark of defendant's counsel injected false issue held not unjustifiable, so as to bar another trial.
In criminal prosecution, where defendant's counsel stated court's ruling rejecting evidence violated defendant's constitutional rights and all rights available to show defense, dismissal of jury before verdict because remark injected false issue held not unjustifiable as matter of law, nor bar to another trial on ground of former jeopardy.
J. F. Burke, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the commonwealth.
J. F. Barry, of Boston, for defendant.
In December, 1922, the defendant was brought to trial in the superior court upon three indictments: (1) Charging assault and battery with intent to commit rape; (2) charging assault and battery with a pistol in one count, and assault and battery in a second count; and (3) charging larceny. By agreement all the indictments were tried together at this and at the second trial, hereinafter referred to.
The report recites that during the trial ‘over twenty colloquies took place between counsel for the defense and the court, and counsel for the drfense and the assistant district attorney, and the court warned the counsel for the defense that if the colloquies continued he would take the case from the jury.’ During the progress of the trial counsel for the defendant called one Riordan, a police lieutenant, and in the course of his examination asked him a question which on objection was excluded on the ground that it related to a collateral matter, and after a discussion between the respective counsel and the court, the latter said:
‘I have ruled that it was a collateral issue; I have ruled that you cannot go into it, and I will save your exception.’
Whereupon counsel for the defendant said:
‘Save my exceptions to that, and I will ask you to save my exception also to this, that your ruling is a direct violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant and of all the rights available to him under the Constitution to show his defense on his trial.’
The presiding judge then said:
The jury were thereupon discharged by order of the court subject to the defendant's exception.
At the next sitting of the criminal court for Suffolk county, the defendant was again called for trial upon the same indictmentsbefore another judge of the superior court, and the defendant seasonably filed a plea to the jurisdiction and two pleas in bar. The pleas were overruled and the defendant excepted. Before the jury were impaneled, the judge, with the consent of the defendant, reported the case to this court, which dismissed the report. 245 Mass....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Bellino
...was no error in denying the motion for a mistrial. That motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the judge. Commonwealth v. Cronin, 257 Mass. 535, 154 N.E. 176;Curley v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. 314 Mass. 31, 49 N.E.2d 445;Shea v. D. & N. Moter Transportation Co., 316 Mass. 553, ......
-
Jones v. Com.
...United States v. Giles, supra at 1013) in order to safeguard to the defendant his right to a fair trial. See Commonwealth v. Cronin, 257 Mass. 535, 537, 154 N.E. 176 (1926); Commonwealth v. Juliano, 358 Mass. 465, 467, 265 N.E.2d 500 To the question reported to us we respond that, based upo......
-
Com. v. Mahoney
...of not guilty. The judge found the defendant guilty and reported the case to this court. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 278, § 30. Commonwealth v. Cronin, 257 Mass. 535, 154 N.E. 176; Commonwealth v. Surridge, 265 Mass. 425, 164 N.E. 480, 62 A.L.R. 402; Commonwealth v. Prince, 327 Mass. 443, 99 N.E.2d Th......
-
Lovett v. Com.
...was likely to result in an unjust verdict, we cannot say that [the] action was without justification." See Commonwealth v. Cronin, 257 Mass. 535, 537, 154 N.E. 176 (1926). The defendant also offers numerous cases 4 for the proposition that improper argument, even by the prosecutor, does not......