Commonwealth v. Hudson
Decision Date | 01 April 1904 |
Citation | 70 N.E. 436,185 Mass. 402 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. HUDSON. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
C. A. McLellan, for plaintiff.
Asa P French, for the Commonwealth.
1. Morton, J., in Commonwealth v. Preece, 140 Mass. 276, 277, 5 N.E. 494, citing cases. That practice was followed in the present case, and the question is whether the evidence on the voir dire warranted the judge in coming to the conclusion that the confession was voluntary. While it may be true that when an arresting officer tells his prisoner that he 'had better tell the truth,' the general rule is that the confession is inadmissible; still, after all, the real question in any case is whether such or similar language, when taken in connection with the surrounding circumstances, and with other language spoken in the same or some prior interview, shows that the confession was made under the influence of some threat or promise, so that it was not voluntary. Commonwealth v. Nott, 135 Mass. 269, and cases cited; Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 135 Mass. 543. Even if it be assumed that the question, 'Don't you think it better to tell the truth?' is in substance equivalent to saying in a direct form that 'it is better to tell the truth,' still the subsequent statement by the officer that he could 'offer the prisoner no hope or favor whatever' must be considered in connection with it. After a careful perusal of the whole evidence, we think that the presiding justice was warranted in coming to the conclusion that the confession was not procured by threat or promise, but was the free and voluntary act of the defendant.
2. The question whether tramps were in the habit of going into the barn was properly excluded, as also was the evidence as to the cost of the building. Under the circumstances of this case the presiding justice may...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Hudson
...185 Mass. 40270 N.E. 436COMMONWEALTHv.HUDSON.Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.April 1, Exceptions from Superior Court, Plymouth County; Robt. O. Harris, Judge. One Hudson was convicted of setting fire to a barn and excepted. Exceptions overruled.EVIDENCE-CONFESSION-ADMISSIB......
-
Abbott v. Frost
...years. The entry of the mortgagee for the purpose of foreclosure under Rev. Laws, c. 187, § 1, and the subsequent sale under the power [185 Mass. 402]in the mortgage, were after notice of the tax sale had been given, and did not work a change in the title, as the alienation of the property ......
- Abbott v. Frost