Commonwealth v. Dorr

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: RUGG
• Citation: 216 Mass. 314,103 N.E. 902
• Decision Date: 09 January 1914
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. DORR.

216 Mass. 314
103 N.E. 902

COMMONWEALTH
v.
DORR.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Jan. 9, 1914.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Essex County; Joseph F. Quinn, Judge.

William A. Dorr was found guilty of murder in the first degree, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

Henry [216 Mass. 319]C. Attwill, Dist. Atty., of Lynn, for the Commonwealth.

Charles Neal Barney, Wilbert A. Bishop, and Charles J. Goldman, all of Lynn, for defendant.

[216 Mass. 315]RUGG, C. J.

The defendant was indicted for the murder of one George E. Marsh. The defendant admitted the killing, but claimed

[103 N.E. 903]

that it was in self-defense. It was undisputed that the [216 Mass. 316]deceased died instantaneously, from bullet wounds received from the defendant.

[1][2][3] 1. The defendant contends that there was not sufficient evidence on which to find a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, under the indictment which charged that the crime was committed at Lynn, within the county of Essex. Under this indictment it was necessary for the commonwealth to prove that the deceased was killed in Essex county, or within 100 rods of the county line, or that he died in that county. Rev. Laws, c. 218, §§ 46 and 49. The facts bearing upon this point were: That the deceased was last seen alive by any witness except the defendant near the central square in Lynn, at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon of April 11th, and that the defendant in his automobile was then a few hundred feet distant and in plain sight of the deceased; that about 35 minutes after 4 of the same day a cane which might have been found to have been one used by the deceased that afternoon was discovered in the road directly opposite the spot where the body of the deceased was found; 30 or 40 feet distant was a cap which might have been found to have been worn by the defendant on the same afternoon; that the next morning, April 12th, the body of the deceased was found at the foot of an embankment in Lynn, 3,701 feet from the line separating Essex county from Suffolk county, and at about the same time a button which might have been found to have been torn from a coat worn by the defendant on the preceding afternoon was seen lying in the highway near the place where the body was found; and that some time later a pistol, identified as belonging to the defendant and carrying unexploded cartridges of the same size and type as those found in the body of the deceased, was discovered in the Saugus river, the center of which is the county line between Essex and Suffolk. The defendant testified that at his invitation the deceased entered his automobile in Lynn, but that the homicide occurred in Suffolk county more than 100 rods from the county line, and that he ‘had brought the body back in the automobile and carried it about for about two hours when he placed it upon the embankment above where it was found.’ There were no buildings between the spot where the body was lying on the morning of April 12th and the gatehouse at Saugus River bridge on the county [216 Mass. 317]line. The mere finding of the body with marks of mortal wounds upon it of such character that death must have ensued almost instantly, at a place where it must have been thrown by the hand of man, within the county of Essex, was sufficient to prove that the killing occurred in that county. Commonwealth v. Costley, 118 Mass. 1, 26. There was evidence of the other facts which...