Commonwealth v. Graham
| Decision Date | 27 June 1932 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. GRAHAM. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Criminal Court, Suffolk County; Cox, Judge.
Wellington Graham was convicted of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and he brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
W. J. Foley, Dist. Atty., and H. J. Campbell, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Boston, for the Commonwealth.
E. M. Shanley, of Boston, for defendant.
The defendant was convicted by a jury on an indictment charging that he ‘did assault and beat Elizabeth McAuliffe with a certain dangerous weapon.’ St. 1927, c. 187, § 1. The case is before us on the defendant's exceptions to the admission of certain evidence. A witness called by the Commonwealth testified that, at a party at the home of Mrs. McAuliffe at which there was considerable drinking, she saw the defendant cut Mrs. McAuliffe with a knife. Mrs. McAuliffe testified that while in a drunken condition she was cut, and was brought to a hospital; that she would not say the defendant ever cut her or that she had ever said to a police officer who brought the defendant to the hospital that the defendant had cut her. A police officer testified that he brought the defendant to the bedside of Mrs. McAuliffe at the hospital and that there Mrs. McAuliffe said she knew the defendant; that the officer asked her: ‘Did he cut you?’ and she replied: ‘He must have, there was no other man there’; that the officer then said to the defendant: ‘What do you say about that?’ and that the defendant replied: ‘I must have been crazy if I did it.’ The defendant seasonably excepted to the above questions appearing in the officer's testimony and to the refusal of the trial judge on motion of the defendant to strike out the answers to those questions as testified to by the officer. The defendant testified that he was at the party at Mrs. McAuliffe's house, that he was drunk and never remembered having trouble with Mrs. McAuliffe or cutting her, that he was brought to her bedside at the hospital and that she never accused him of having cut her.
The evidence excepted to was properly admitted for the consideration of the jury. It was for the jury to say whether or not the testimony of the police officer was true and if so whether or not the reply of the defendant to the statement of Mrs. McAuliffe was indicative of the defendant's guilt of the crime charged. ‘When a defendant while under arrest is charged with a crime by an accusation made in his presence, and makes an equivocal reply or one susceptible of being interpreted as an admission or one not likely to be made by an innocent man, the question or statement and the answer or comment are admissible.’ Commonwealth v. Madeiros, 255 Mass. 304, 313, 151 N. E. 297, 299, 47 A. L. R. 962. The defendant contends that when a statement accusatory of a crime is made in the presence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Green
...Commonwealth v. Spiropoulos, 208 Mass. 71, 74, 94 N.E. 451;Commonwealth v. Gangi, 243 Mass. 341, 137 N.E. 643;Commonwealth v. Graham, 279 Mass. 466, 181 N.E. 506;Commonwealth v. Kosior, 280 Mass. 418, 422, 182 N.E. 852;Commonwealth v. Osman, 284 Mass. 421, 424, 188 N.E. 226;Commonwealth v. ......
-
Commonwealth v. Osman
...v. Hamel, 264 Mass. 564, 569, 163 N. E. 168;Commonwealth v. Hebert, 264 Mass. 571, 578, 163 N. E. 189;Commonwealth v. Graham, 279 Mass. 466, 468, 181 N. E. 506. In fact, the defendant not only denied the commission of the crime, but declared that Alli killed the girl; and this, the jury mig......
-
Com. v. Rogers
...255 Mass. 304, 313 (151 N.E. 297) (1926). Commonwealth v. Hamel, 264 Mass. 564, 569 (163 N.E. 168) (1928). Commonwealth v. Graham, 279 Mass. 466, 468 (181 N.E.2d 506) (1932). Commonwealth v. Valcourt, 333 Mass. 706, 716 (133 N.E.2d 217) (1956). Commonwealth v. Machado, 339 Mass. 713, 715-71......
-
Com. v. Machado
...Commonwealth v. Hamel, 264 Mass. 564, 569, 163 N.E. 168; Commonwealth v. Hebert, 264 Mass. 571, 578, 163 N.E. 189; Commonwealth v. Graham, 279 Mass. 466, 468, 181 N.E. 506; Commonwealth v. Lucas, 332 Mass. 594, 598, 126 N.E.2d 804, and cases cited; Commonwealth v. Locke, 335 Mass. 106, 115-......