Commonwealth v. Marshall

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtSHELDON
Citation97 N.E. 632,211 Mass. 86
Decision Date27 February 1912
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. MARSHALL et al.

211 Mass. 86
97 N.E. 632

COMMONWEALTH
v.
MARSHALL et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

Feb. 27, 1912.


Exceptions from Superior Court, Plymouth County; William Schofield, Judge.

Harry Marshall and Lena Cusumano were convicted of the murder of Frank Cusumano, the husband of Lena Cusumano, and they bring exceptions. Overruled.

At the trial it appeared that the body of Cusumano was found on the beach at Hull, wrapped in a quilt, which the government introduced evidence to prove had been taken from the yard of one Martin Jacobson and carried by Frank Cusumano to the latter's home and put on a bed. The quilt was identified by Accusia Cusumano, nine years old, a daughter of Frank Cusumano, and also by Martin Jacobson. The latter's son was also a witness and identified the quilt as having been in Cusumano's possession, but it was objected by defendants that Walter was testifying under the influence of a police officer. It appeared, however, that before he had talked with the police officer he had made similar statements to others regarding the quilt. The witness Accusia was examined by the judge before testifying, the examination not being within hearing of the jury, and the witness testified she knew that if she told a lie she ‘would be punished and go to hell.’ Her testimony was admitted subject to exception.


Thos. [211 Mass. 89]J. Grady and Wm. J. Coughlan, for exceptants.

Albert F. Barker, Dist. Atty. and Fredk. G. Katzmann, for the Commonwealth.


SHELDON, J.

[1] The defendants' motion. made at the argument in this court, to strike from the files and record the brief of the commonwealth, cannot be allowed. But the statement of the case contained in that brief was not a proper one. It was the view of the district attorney as to the case developed at the trial rather than a statement of the case presented by the bill of exceptions. That bill of course stated only such part of the proceedings had at the trial as were needed to present properly to us the questions of law which were intended to be brought up. The concise statement of the case with which it is required by rule 1 for the regulation of practice before the full court that each brief shall begin, means a concise statement of the case

[97 N.E. 633]

shown by the bill of exceptions. Nothing more should be included; and the brief of the commonwealth should not have gone further. Accordingly in passing upon the case we have wholly disregarded the statement contained in that brief.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Randall v. Peerless Motor Car Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 19, 1912
    ...stricken out. The present motion is in such form that it can be granted and is to be distinguished from that denied in Com. v. Marshall, 211 Mass. 86, 97 N. E. 632. The other matters urged in this motion we do not treat as suggestions of disrespect to the trial judge, which is the only grou......
  • Com. v. Whitehead
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 30, 1980
    ...Mass. 541, 546, 350 N.E.2d 460 (1976); Arena v. John P. Squire Co., 321 Mass. 423, 425, 73 N.E.2d 836 (1947); Commonwealth v. Marshall, 211 Mass. 86, 90, 97 N.E. 632 (1912). Perhaps that holds especially true where, as here, the judge has had the person under his eye while she was actually ......
  • Commonwealth v. Giacomazza
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • May 25, 1942
    ...v. Boston, 188 Mass. 475, 74 N.E. 687;Commonwealth v. Tucker, 189 Mass. 457, 76 N.E. 127, 7 L.R.A.,N.S., 1056; Commonwealth v. Marshall, 211 Mass. 86, 97 N.E. 632;Commonwealth v. Retkovitz, 222 Mass. 245, 110 N.E. 293;Walsh v. Wyman Lunch Co., 244 Mass. 407, 138 N.E. 389;Commonwealth v. Hoy......
  • Coghlan v. White
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 24, 1920
    ...v. Cross, 235 Mass. 428, 126 N. E. 655; of the competency of a witness to understand the nature of an oath, Commonwealth v. Marshall, 211 Mass. 86, 90, 97 N. E. 632;Commonwealth v. Teregno, 234 Mass. 56, 124 N. E. 889; of the identity [236 Mass. 169]of handwriting as a standard for comparis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Randall v. Peerless Motor Car Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 19, 1912
    ...stricken out. The present motion is in such form that it can be granted and is to be distinguished from that denied in Com. v. Marshall, 211 Mass. 86, 97 N. E. 632. The other matters urged in this motion we do not treat as suggestions of disrespect to the trial judge, which is the only grou......
  • Com. v. Whitehead
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 30, 1980
    ...Mass. 541, 546, 350 N.E.2d 460 (1976); Arena v. John P. Squire Co., 321 Mass. 423, 425, 73 N.E.2d 836 (1947); Commonwealth v. Marshall, 211 Mass. 86, 90, 97 N.E. 632 (1912). Perhaps that holds especially true where, as here, the judge has had the person under his eye while she was actually ......
  • Commonwealth v. Giacomazza
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • May 25, 1942
    ...v. Boston, 188 Mass. 475, 74 N.E. 687;Commonwealth v. Tucker, 189 Mass. 457, 76 N.E. 127, 7 L.R.A.,N.S., 1056; Commonwealth v. Marshall, 211 Mass. 86, 97 N.E. 632;Commonwealth v. Retkovitz, 222 Mass. 245, 110 N.E. 293;Walsh v. Wyman Lunch Co., 244 Mass. 407, 138 N.E. 389;Commonwealth v. Hoy......
  • Coghlan v. White
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 24, 1920
    ...v. Cross, 235 Mass. 428, 126 N. E. 655; of the competency of a witness to understand the nature of an oath, Commonwealth v. Marshall, 211 Mass. 86, 90, 97 N. E. 632;Commonwealth v. Teregno, 234 Mass. 56, 124 N. E. 889; of the identity [236 Mass. 169]of handwriting as a standard for comparis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT