Commonwealth v. Kossowan
Decision Date | 05 January 1929 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. KOSSOWAN. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Exceptions and Appeal from Superior Criminal Court, Essex County; G. H. W. Hayes, Judge, sitting under St. 1923, c. 469.
Willam Kossowan was convicted of an offense, and he appeals and excepts. Appeals dismissed, and exceptions overruled.
Defendant cannot appeal from disallowance of bill of exceptions; the only relief in such case being petition to establish truth of exceptions under G. L. c. 278, s 31, and chapter 231, s 117.
Defendant cannot except to disallowance of bill of exceptions.
Where every question intended to be raised is open on exceptions, appeal is superfluous.
Under G. L. c. 279, s 4, it was trial judge's duty to sentence defendant promptly upon conviction for crime not punishable with death.
Court's failure to sentence defendant on conviction did not affect defendant's right to file exceptions or deprive judge of jurisdiction to pass upon exceptions.
It was defendant's duty to file exceptions following conviction and judge's duty to allow or disallow exceptions, under G. L. c. 278, s 31, without substantial delay, though judge had not sentenced defendant.
W. G. Clark, Dist. Atty., of Gloucester, and E. F. Flynn, Asst.
Dist. Atty., of Lynn, for the Commonwealth.
E. M. Shanley, of Boston, for defendant.
After trial and verdict of guilty, the defendant filed a bill of exceptions which was disallowed before sentence was imposed. The defendant filed a petition in the Supreme Judicial Court to establish the truth of those exceptions. That petition was dismissed by rescript containing as the brief statement of the reasons for decision this: No opinion was written. Thus it was adjudged that the exceptions were without merit. Petition of Reynolds, 253 Mass. 427, 428, 149 N. E. 154;Petition of Bullock, 254 Mass. 14, 17, 149 N. E. 604.
[1] The defendant also appealed from the disallowance of his bill of exceptions. No such practice is permissible. The only relief is by petition to establish the truth of the exceptions under G. L. c. 278, § 31; chapter 231, § 117. See Petition of Thorndike, 250 Mass. 408, 145 N. E. 762, and cases there cited; Petition of Weymouth, 251 Mass. 359, 146 N. E. 720.
[2] It is stated in the bill of exceptions, ‘The defendant never having been sentenced before the disallowance of said exceptions to which order, disallowing the defendant's exceptions the defendant excepted.’ This appears to mean that the defendant excepted to the disallowance of his bill of exceptions. That is impossible practice. Petition of Barnett, 240 Mass. 228, 133 N. E. 111;Petition of Thorndike, 244 Mass. 429, 139 N. E. 208; Id., 250, Mass. 408, 145 N. E. 762;Id., 254 Mass. 256, 150 N. E. 296.
[3] If this appeal be treated as intended to bring up the record for correction of errors of law, for reasons presently to be stated there was no error. But every question thus attempted to be raised is open on the exceptions and will be considered in that connection. Appeal of this nature is superfiuous.
[4][5][6] After the dismissal of the petition to establish exceptions, the defendant was sentenced for the first time. To this sentence the defendant excepted. It was the duty of the trial judge to sentence the defendant upon conviction for the crime of which he had been found guilty, if not being punishable with death. G. L. c. 279, § 4. In re Lebowitch, 235 Mass. 357, 363, 126 N. E. 831. The reasons why sentence was not promptly imposed do not appear. Manifestly the case was not filed or prosecution suspended. The case of Commonwealth v. Carver, 224 Mass. 42, 44, 112 N. E. 481, is not pertinent. The obligation to sentence resting on the presiding judge was directory so far as concerned the defendant, and failure, if any, to perform it did not impair his substantial rights. Cheney v. Coughlin, 201 Mass. 204, 211, 212, 213, 87 N. E. 744;Ashley v. Three Justices of Superior Court, 228 Mass. 63, 70, 116 N. E. 961 (8 A. L. R. 1463).Trustees of Andover Seminary v. Visitors, 253 Mass. 256, 280, 148 N. E. 900;Bath Iron Works, Limited, v. Savage, 262 Mass. 123, 159 N. E. 445. It was said by Mr. Justice Holmes in Commonwealth v. Clifford, 145 Mass. 97, 98, 13 N. E. 345, 347, respecting an adjudication that exceptions were frivolous and intended for delay: ‘We have no doubt of the power of the court to pass upon the exceptions before they are filed or allowed.’ That principle, although declared before the enactment of St. 1895, c. 469, now G. L. c. 279 § 4, is equally sound since that enactment. Commonwealth v. Brown, 167 Mass. 144, 146, 45 N. E. 1. It is pertinent to the case at bar. The want of sentence did not affect the right of the defendant to file exceptions. He was required to act betimes in this respect if he desired not to waive his exceptions. Petition of Allen, 255 Mass. 227, 151 N. E. 68. The fact that sentence had not been imposed did not deprive the trial judge of jurisdiction to pass upon the exceptions. It was his duty to consider the exceptions without substantial delay, and either to allow or disallow them. G. L. c. 278, § 31; Petition of C. F. Hovey Co., 254 Mass. 551, 151 N. E. 66. If he disallowed them, the defendant, in order to preserve his rights, was required to proceed in strict accordance with the statute as to form, substance and time, in order to press his petition to establish exceptions. He pursued that course. This court had jurisdiction to consider that petition and disposed of it according to settled principles.
Nothing in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Millen
... ... Sylvester, 282 Mass. 352, ... 185 N.E. 44), and in non-capital criminal cases (St. 1895, c ... 469; G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 279, § 4; Commonwealth v ... Fleckner, 167 Mass. 13, 44 N.E. 1053; Commonwealth ... v. Brown, 167 Mass. 144, 146, 45 N.E. 1; ... Commonwealth v. Kossowan, 265 Mass. 436, 438, 165 ... N.E. 22, and cases cited), the original theory has been ... reversed, and final decree, judgment or sentence is now ... commonly entered or rendered notwithstanding the pendency of ... exceptions. Capital cases, however, followed the original ... theory until St ... ...
-
Com. v. Simmons
...312 Mass. 252, 255-256, 44 N.E.2d 659 (1942) (mandatory to impose sentence following conviction). See also Commonwealth v. Kossowan, 265 Mass. 436, 438, 165 N.E. 22 (1929). Cf. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 369 Mass. 904, 922, 344 N.E.2d 166 (1976) ("The ability to defer the imposition of senten......
-
Commonwealth v. Dowe
... ... given, unless a further time, not exceeding five days, except ... by consent of the district attorney, is allowed by the ... court." G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 278, Section 31. Allen, ... petitioner, 255 Mass. 227 ... Commonwealth v ... Kossowan, 265 Mass. 436 ... Glick, petitioner, 299 Mass ... 255 ... For a comparable practice in civil cases, see Anti ... v. Boston Elevated Railway, 247 Mass. 1 , 3, 4; Cohen v ... Industrial Bank & Trust Co. 274 Mass. 498. In the present ... case no further time was allowed. The exception to the denial ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Vallarelli
...court would be presented. Fitch v. Jefferson, 175 Mass. 56, 55 N. E. 623;In re Bishop, 208 Mass. 405, 94 N. E. 479;Commonwealth v. Kossowan, 265 Mass. 436, 437, 165 N. E. 22, and cases cited. The entire contention of the petitioners, as shown by their petition and the copies annexed thereto......