Commonwealth v. Haskell

• Decision Date: 31 October 1885
• Citation: 2 N.E. 773,140 Mass. 128
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. HASKELL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

140 Mass. 128

2 N.E. 773

COMMONWEALTH

v.HASKELL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Filed October, 1885.

This was an indictment charging the defendant with burning a certain building situate in Fitchburg. There were three trials of the defendant. In the first case, one York, a partner of the defendant, testified for him, but not at the subsequent trials. In his argument before the jury the district attorney argued and commented on the fact that York had not been called as a witness, nor his deposition taken, and the defendant asked the court to rule, “that if York was a material witness, it was the duty of the government, rather than the defense, to hold him as a witness.” This the court refused to do, as also to instruct the jury “that the government must show a motive on the part of the defendant to commit the crime, and this beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court instructed the jury that “the government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt every material allegation in the indictment, including the felonious intent of the defendant; that the government was not required to show the particular motive that prompts an intelligent moral agent to commit a crime, but the apparent absence of motive is a circumstance to be weighed in the defendant's favor.” Exceptions were taken by the defendant to the rulings and refusals to rule.

E.J. Sherman, for the Commonwealth.

J.W. Corcoran and J.W. Walsh, for defendant.

BY THE COURT.

Whether any inference could be fairly drawn from the failure of the defendant to produce the testimony of York, his partner, under the circumstances of the case, was for the jury to determine. The court rightly refused to rule as a matter of law, as requested by the defendant, that “it was the duty of the government, rather than the defendant, to hold York as a witness.” There is no law which required the government, rather than the defendant, to hold or call him as a witness. The exceptions taken at the other rulings at the trial are waived, and the rulings were clearly right. Exceptions overruled.