Commonwealth v. Downey
| Decision Date | 24 October 1934 |
| Citation | 192 N.E. 512,288 Mass. 147 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. DOWNEY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Criminal Court, Middlesex County; Boudreau, Judge.
Hugh Downey and others were convicted of conspiring to solicit bribes, and they bring exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
F. A. Crafts, Asst. Dist. Atty., of East Cambridge, for the commonwealth.
T. H. Mahony, of Boston, and E. J. Tierney, of Lowell, for defendants.
The indictment charges that the four defendants ‘did conspire together to commit thereafter from time to time and on different occasions as opportunity therefor should offer, and not at any times then particularly set and fixed, the crime of corruptly requesting of Joseph Hamilton a gift or gratuity, with an understanding that the said William Conole and William Eagan, police officers of the Town of Dracut, would abstain from performing an act coming within the course of their duty as such police officers of the Town of Dracut.’ At the time of the alleged offence the defendants Eagan and Conole were police officers of the town, and were the only police officers named in the indictment; the defendant Downey was an attorney at law, and the defendant Sousa was a restaurant keeper. The only questions sought to be raised are the jurisdiction of the court to try the offence charged, and the sufficiency of the indictment to charge a crime. It is recited in the record that no question is raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the indictment if it is legally sufficient. At the close of the testimony the defendants moved in writing that the judge direct verdicts of not guilty. The motions were denied subject to the defendants' exceptions. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to each defendant. Thereafter each defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, assigning as reasons therefor that the court had no jurisdiction of the alleged offence sought to be charged in the indictment, and that it failed to charge any offence cognizable at common law or by statute. These motions were denied and the defendants excepted.
The indictment plainly alleges a conspiracy to violate G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 268, § 8A. In a charge of conspiracy ‘the conspiracy is the gist of the crime, and certainty, to a common intent, sufficient to identify the offense which the defendants conspired to commit, is all that is requisite in stating the object of the conspiracy.’ Williamson v. United States, 207 U. S. 425, 447, 28 S. Ct. 163, 171, 52 L. Ed. 278. It is the contention of the defendants that the indictment is fatally defective because the crime which it intends to charge is conspiracy ‘to become accessories before the fact’ to bribery. They rely upon the case of Commonwealth v. Barnes, 132 Mass. 242, to sustain their contention. That...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. King
...13(b)(1), 378 Mass. 871 (1979). 2 See Commonwealth v. Soule, 6 Mass.App. 973, 974, 384 N.E.2d 235 (1979); Commonwealth v. Downey, 288 Mass. 147, 149, 192 N.E. 512 (1934). The defendant does not allege that he would have presented his defense any differently if he had been informed of the ex......
-
Commonwealth v. Mannos
...a conspiracy to accept bribes if a public officer is a party to the said conspiracy. Commonwealth v. Smith, 163 Mass. 411 . Commonwealth v. Downey, 288 Mass. 147 . States v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140. United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78. Downs v. United States, 3 F.2d 855. Farnsworth v. Zerb......
-
Com. v. David
...by St.1938, c. 321, § 2, and St.1951, c. 575, that is, to engage in the sale, delivery and exchange of heroin. See Commonwealth v. Downey, 288 Mass. 147, 149, 192 N.E. 512. Compare Commonwealth v. Chagnon, 330 Mass. 278, 281-282, 113 N.E.2d 50. The statutory phrase 'unlawful traffic', see S......
-
Com. v. Soule
...to establish the unlawful common intent and to identify the offense which the perpetrators conspired to commit. Commonwealth v. Downey, 288 Mass. 147, 148, 192 N.E. 512 (1934), citing Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 447, 28 S.Ct. 163, 52 L.Ed. 278 (1908). The defendant could have......