Commonwealth v. Davis
| Decision Date | 28 March 1930 |
| Citation | 170 N.E. 924,271 Mass. 99 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. DAVIS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Norfolk County; N. P. Brown, Judge.
Joseph Davis was convicted of robbery, and he brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
It is settled law that jury in criminal trials have no rightful power to determine questions of law against instructions of court.
In prosecution for robbery, under G. L. c. 265, s 19, argument that crime charged might be punished with life imprisonment was improper, since, where penalty to be imposed rests in discretion of trial judge within specified limits, jury's speculation as to extent of punishment which might be imposed is not fact in determination of guilt or innocence and is not element in law defining nature of crime.
J. V. Sullivan, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the Commonwealth.
E. M. Shanley, of Boston, for defendant.
This was an indictment under G. L. c. 265, § 19, in which the defendant was charged with the robbery of John Landowsky on October 17, 1929. No contention is made that there was not evidence which required the submission of the case to the jury. ‘The charge was full and complete in relation to the necessary elements for the Commonwealth to establish in order to convict the defendant of the robbery set forth in the indictment.’ Upon conviction the defendant was sentenced to one year in the house of correction.
[1][2] Counsel for the defendant, while arguing his case to the jury, said: ‘The crime which the defendant is charged with may be punished with life imprisonment; it is a very serious charge that this defendant is on trial for.’ Thereupon the assistant district attorney interrupted the defendant's counsel and said: ‘I object to that line of argument.’ The judge then said: ‘You know that is improper and you cannot so argue to the jury.’ The defendant duly excepted to the refusal of the judge to permit a continuance of the argument as above set forth. It is to be noted that the statement of counsel for the defendant as to the serious character of the offense charged and as to the maximum penalty which may be imposed for the crime of robbery was allowed to stand without other comment by the judge than ‘You know that is improper and you cannot so argue to the jury.’ Since Commonwealth v. Anthes, 5 Gray, 185,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Valliere
...be not imposed, but the judge instructed him not otherwise to comment on the penalty. There was no error. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 271 Mass. 99, 100--101, 170 N.E. 924 (1930); Commonwealth v. O'Connell, 274 Mass. 315, 323, 174 N.E. 665 The prosecutor argued to the jury that the crimes had......
-
Commonwealth v. O'Connell
...N. E. 553;Sayles v. Quinn, 196 Mass. 492, 494, 82 N. E. 713. The jury were bound to follow the law as stated by the judge, Commonwealth v. Davis (Mass.) 170 N. E. 924, and it was the duty of counsel to conform to the orders and directions given and to refrain from making an argument which h......
- Bickford v. Furber
- Fortune v. New York, N.H.&H.R. Co.