Commonwealth v. Cronin

• Decision Date: 25 May 1923
• Citation: 139 N.E. 647,245 Mass. 163
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. CRONIN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

245 Mass. 163

139 N.E. 647

COMMONWEALTH

v.CRONIN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 25, 1923.

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; John F. Brown, Judge.

Lawrence P. Cronin was charged in three indictments with assault and battery with intent to rape, assault and battery with a pistol, assault and battery, and larceny. After jury was discharged at the first trial, because of a statement made in their presence by counsel for the defense, the defendant filed pleas of former jeopardy and acquittal, and the cause was reported by the justice of the superior court. Report dismissed.

1. Criminal law k1068-Authority to report questions is wholly creature of statute.

The authority of the judge of the superior court to report questions of law for the decision of the full court is wholly the creature of statute.

2. Criminal law k1068-Questions cannot be reported until there has been a conviction.

The power to report conferred on the superior court by G. L. c. 231, s 111, relates to civil cases alone, and the only right to report in a criminal case is found in chapter 278, s 30, and is expressly confined to instances where a person has been convicted, so that the Supreme Judicial Court has no jurisdiction to decide an interlocutory question arising on report in a criminal prosecution until the case shall have been finally disposed of by conviction in the superior court.H. P. Fielding, of Dorchester, and T. S. Delano, Asst. Dist. Attys., for the Commonwealth.

J. E. & D. T. O'Connell and J. F. Barry, all of Boston, for defendant.

RUGG, C. J.

[1] The authority of a judge of the superior court to report questions of law for the decision of the full court is wholly the creature of statute. Bearce v. Bowker, 115 Mass. 129;Churchill v. Palmer, 115 Mass. 310;Noble v. Boston, 111 Mass. 485;Golden v. Knowles, 120 Mass. 336;Russell v. Lathrop, 119 Mass. 531;Newburyport Institution for Savings v. Coffin, 189 Mass. 74, 75 N. E. 81;John Hetherington & Sons Ltd. v. Wm. Firth & Co., 212 Mass. 257, 259, 98 N. E. 797;Riverbank Improvement Co. v. Chapman, 224 Mass. 424, 425, 113 N. E. 215;Atlantic Maritime Co. v. Gloucester, 228 Mass. 519, 117 N. E. 924;Walters v. Jackson & Newton Co., 231 Mass. 247, 120 N. E. 688;Porter v. Boston Storage Warehouse Co., 238 Mass. 298, 130 N. E. 502.

‘The trend of all our decisions has been to confine the power of reporting cases and the scope of the authority of this court in dealing with reports, strictly to the language of the statute.’ Smith v. Lincoln, 198 Mass. 388, 392, 84 N. E. 498, 499 and cases there collected.

[2] The power to report conferred on the superior court by G. L. c. 231, § 111, and the proceeding statutes of which it is the present form, relates to civil cases alone. The only right to report in criminal cases is found in G. L. c. 278, § 30, and is expressly confined to instances where a person has been convicted. This court has no jurisdiction to decide an interlocutory question arising in a criminal prosecution until the case shall have been finally disposed of by conviction in the superior court. Commonwealth v. Intoxicating Liquors, 105 Mass. 468;Commonwealth v. Dowdican's Bail, 115 Mass. 133;Terry v. Brightman, 129 Mass. 535, 537;Commonwealth v. Burton, 183 Mass. 461, 473, 474, 67 N. E. 419;Commonwealth v. Blinn, 219 Mass. 386, 106 N. E. 1026;Commonwealth v. Teevens, 141 Mass. 577, 6 N. E. 756.Commonwealth v. O'Neil, 233 Mass. 535, 543, 124 N. E. 482.

All this has been so often decided as to make discussion superfluous. The case of Shea v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 154 Mass. 31, 27 N. E. 672, is no authority to the contrary. The ground upon which the decision there was put was decisive of the merits of the entire controversy. In such...