Commonwealth v. Guillemette
| Decision Date | 04 January 1923 |
| Citation | 243 Mass. 346,137 N.E. 700 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. GUILLEMETTE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Franklin T. Hammond, Judge.
Adam Guillmette was found guilty of offenses, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Defendant was charged in one indictment with manslaughter, and in another with operating a motor vehicle recklessly and with operating a motor vehicle so that the lives and safety of the general public might be endangered, and was found guilty under both indictments. The only exception was to the exclusion of evidence discussed in the opinion.
Defendant could not be found guilty of manslaughter for killing another person in an automobile collision, unless his wanton or reckless conduct caused the death.
Where defendant was charged in one indictment with manslaughter, in connection with an automobile collision, and in another with operating a motor vehicle recklessly, and so that the lives and safety of the general public might be endangered, negligence of person killed was not an excuse as to any of the charges, and the fact that such person had no license to operate an automobile in Massachusetts was irrelevant.Endicott P. Saltonstall, Dist. Atty., and Charles W. Blood, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Boston, for the Commonwealth.
Qua, Howard & Rogers and Albert S. Howard, all of Lowell, for defendant.
[1][2] The defendant was tried upon an indictment for manslaughter in killing one Robert C. Clifford by assault, and at the same time upon another indictment with two counts, one for operating a motor vehicle recklessly and the other for operating a motor vehicle so that the lives and safety of the general public might be endangered. The defendant, driving an automobile upon a bridge in Lowell, came in collision with another automobile driven by Clifford, whereby the latter was killed. There was evidence sufficient to warrant the verdict of guilty on all the charges. The single exception is to the exclusion by the trial judge of evidence offered by the defendant that Clifford, a resident of Lowell, was not licensed to operate automobiles in Massachusetts. This evidence was offered for the purpose of showing Clifford's lack of skill in operating his automobile and in support of the defendant's contention that that was the sole cause of the accident. The defendant could not be found guilty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Welansky
...of wanton or reckless conduct. There is in Massachusetts at common law no such thing as ‘criminal negligence.’ Commonwealth v. Guillemette, 243 Mass. 346, 137 N.E. 700;Commonwealth v. Arone, 265 Mass. 128, 163 N.E. 758;Commonwealth v. Jones, 288 Mass. 150, 152, 192 N.E. 522; Minasian v. Aet......
-
Com. v. Geisler
...defendant," and "would not relieve ... [him]" of culpability in a criminal prosecution for vehicular homicide. Commonwealth v. Guillemette, 243 Mass. 346, 347, 137 N.E. 700 (1923). Taking a slightly different tack, he maintains instead that the jury should have learned that it would have be......
-
Commonwealth v. Welansky
...v. Hawkins, 157 Mass. 551 , 553. Commonwealth v. Parsons, 195 Mass. 560 , 569. Commonwealth v. Peach, 239 Mass. 575 . Commonwealth v. Guillemette, 243 Mass. 346. Commonwealth v. Arone, 265 Mass. 128 Commonwealth v. Jones, 288 Mass. 150, 152. Minasian v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. 295 Mass. 1 , 5. ......
-
Commonwealth v. Pentz
...and affords no ascertainable test of guilt, and hence is a nullity. [4] The statute has been assumed to be valid in Commonwealth v. Guillemette, 243 Mass. 346, 137 N. E. 700. A similar one was treated as not open to objection in Commonwealth v. Cassidy, 209 Mass. 24, 95 N. E. 214. Constitut......