Commonwealth v. Gateley

• Decision Date: 29 November 1909
• Citation: 89 N.E. 1063,203 Mass. 598
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. GATELEY et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

203 Mass. 598

89 N.E. 1063

COMMONWEALTH v. GATELEY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

November 29, 1909

COUNSEL

P. H. Kelley, for appellants.

A. H Weed, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

These two defendants were severally convicted in the superior court upon a complaint made by one Redding in the municipal court of the city of Boston, charging that they, 'with force and arms, from the person of said Redding, did feloniously steal, take and carry away one stickpin of the value of $5 of the goods, moneys and chattels of said Redding, on his person and in his possession then and there being,' etc. Each of the defendants was convicted in the municipal court, and Gateley was sentenced there to imprisonment in the house of correction for the term of four months, and Norton was sentenced to imprisonment in the common jail for the term of one year. Both defendants appealed to the superior court, and upon conviction there each of them was sentenced to imprisonment in the house of correction for the term of two years. Before sentence was imposed upon them in the superior court, they requested the following rulings:

(1) 'This court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, cannot impose a greater or larger sentence than is provided by statute for the punishment of the crime set forth in the complaint by the municipal court of the city of Boston. The maximum penalty which might be imposed in the municipal court cannot be exceeded in this court in sentencing the defendants.'

(2) 'The crime of larceny from the person or property not exceeding the sum of $5 in value, which is the crime set forth in this complaint, is included within the provisions of Rev. Laws, c. 208, § 30, and neither of the defendants can receive a greater sentence than the maximum amount of fine or imprisonment which is provided by said section 30.'

These requests were refused and the defendants excepted. They also appealed from the judgment of the court, sentencing each of them to imprisonment for two years.

Before us their first contention is under Rev. Laws, c. 208, § 24, that the crime of larceny from the person is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison and therefore that one cannot be convicted of it except upon an indictment of a grand jury. In support of this proposition they cite Jones v. Robbins, 8 Gray, 329, in which St. 1855, p. 861, c. 448, was held unconstitutional because it subjected offenders to this kind of punishment by police courts, on a trial upon a complaint, without indictment by a grand jury. But under St. 1857, p. 505, c. 157, re-enacted in Gen. St. 1860, c. 116, § 14, it was held in Lewis v. Robbins, 13 Allen, 552, that police courts have jurisdiction of larcenies concurrently with the superior court where the property alleged to be stolen is not alleged to exceed the value of $50. It was also held that the statute applies to aggravated larcenies, and particularly to larcenies from the person, where the property is not alleged to exceed the value of $50. The provision of this statute is now found in Rev. Laws, c. 160,§ 28, with an enlargement of the value from $50 to $100. The punishment may be by a fine of not more than $100, or by imprisonment for not more than two years. As this term of imprisonment does not include confinement in the state prison, the constitutional objection which arose in Jones v. Robbins, ubi supra, is obviated.

With this limit of jurisdiction in cases of larceny we have another provision in Rev. Laws, c. 208, § 30,...