Commonwealth v. Marcellino
| Decision Date | 27 May 1930 |
| Citation | 271 Mass. 325,171 N.E. 451 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. MARCELLINO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Plymouth County.
Annibal Marcellino was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon, and he brings exceptions.
Exceptions sustained.
See, also, 171 N. E. 81.
W. P. Kelley, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the Commonwealth.
D. W. Casey, of Boston, for defendant.
The defendant was tried upon an indictment alleging an assault upon Daniel Lombard with intent to murder. He was found guilty of an assault with a dangerous weapon. There was evidence tending to show that shortly after midnight on a January morning Lombard and another went to a summer estate where the defendant was employed as caretaker, and awakened him by knocking upon the kitchen door; that defendant came to the door with a pistol in his hand, and in answer to Lombard's inquiry as to the reason for being armed said that he was all alone and had it for protection. The evidence was conflicting as to what occurred thereafter except that it appeared there was a quarrel, in the course of which Lombard received a wound.
Lombard testified as a witness called by the Commonwealth. On cross-examination he was asked, ‘Is it not a fact that you have brought a civil suit for $5,000 against the defendant based on this assault which is now pending?’ On objection this question was excluded. This was error. The question was designed to elicit information tending to show both bias and personal interest in the outcome of the indictment then on trial. It was of great importance to the witness that a verdict of guilty should be returned. Judgment against the defendant upon the indictment on trial would at the least have a strong tendency to prevent the defendant from testifying in his own behalf on the trial of the civil action brought by the witness against him or, if he testified, to impair the value of such testimony. In other respects it would be or might become a difficult obstacle in the defence of the civil case and an important advantage to the plaintiff in prosecuting it. It is familiar law that personal bias or interest in the outcome of litigation may be shown to affect the credibility of a witness. As was said by Wells, J. in Day v. Stickney, 14 Allen, 255, at page 258, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. State
...1985); State v. Kellogg, 350 So.2d 656, 657-58 (La.1977); State v. Whitman, 429 A.2d 203, 205 (Me. 1981); Commonwealth v. Marcellino, 271 Mass. 325, 171 N.E. 451, 452 (1930); People v. Drolet, 157 Mich. 90, 121 N.W. 291, 291-92 (1909); State v. Williams, 16 N.J.Super. 372, 84 A.2d 756, 760 ......
-
State v. Doughty
...(1977); Cox v. State, 523 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); State v. Williams, 16 N.J.Super. 372, 84 A.2d 756 (1951); Commonwealth v. Marcellino, 271 Mass. 325, 171 N.E. 451 (1930). Such evidence may be shown by the testimony of other witnesses. Lane v. Commonwealth, 190 Va. 58, 55 S.E.2d 450 (......
-
Com. v. Joyce
...prevaricate' " (emphasis in original). Commonwealth v. Haywood, supra at ---, c 388 N.E.2d 648, quoting from Commonwealth v. Marcellino, 271 Mass. 325, 327, 171 N.E. 451 (1930), quoting from Day v. Stickney, 14 Allen 255, 258 (1867). We have in the past recognized that this right may assume......
-
State v. Hart
...557, 93 So. 260; State v. McLemore, 99 Kan. 777, 164 P. 161; Coleman v. Commonwealth, 208 Ky. 601, 271 S.W. 662; Commonwealth v. Marcellino, 271 Mass. 325, 171 N.E. 451; People v. Drolet, 157 Mich. 90, 121 N.W. 291; State v. Decker, 161 Mo.App. 396, 143 S.W. 544; State v. Williams, 16 N.J.S......