Commonwealth v. Massad
Decision Date | 09 October 1922 |
Citation | 242 Mass. 532,136 N.E. 615 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. MASSAD. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; Frederick W. Fosdick, Judge.
Frank Massad was convicted of going away, after knowingly colliding with and injuring a person, while operating an automobile, without stopping and making known his name, residence, and automobile number, and on appeal to the superior court was again found guilty, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Before the jury was impaneled in the superior court, defendant moved to quash the complaint, because it failed to state the name of any person with whom defendant collided, which motion was overruled, and defendant excepted. Defendant also excepted to the admission of testimony that Mrs. Lena Grauel was the person struck and injured by the automobile, contending that the complaint should have alleged her name, and that, as it failed to do so, evidence that she was the person collided with and injured was improperly admitted.
Edward T. Esty, Dist. Atty., of Worcester, Emerson W. Baker, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Fitchburg, and Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Worcester, for the Commonwealth.
John H. Meagher, Emil Zaeder, and John L. Bianchi, all of Worcester, for defendant.
Upon a complaint issued out of the Central district court of Worcester, on September 29, 1920, the defendant was charged with operating an automobile upon a certain way, and that he went away, after knowingly colliding with and causing injury to a person, without stopping and making known his name, residence, and number of his motor vehicle, as required by law.
[1] He was convicted and appealed to the superior court; at the trial and before the jury were impaneled, he filed a motion to quash the complaint on the ground that--
‘it is indefinite, uncertain and vague and because it fails to state any offense contrary to the statutes of this commonwealth, and because it fails to state the name of any person with whom the defendant is alleged to have collided or caused injury to.’
The motion was rightly overruled. It is too late to object in the superior court that a complaint filed originally in a district court is insufficient in form. R. L. c. 219, § 21 (now G. L. c. 278, § 17); Commonwealth v. Norton, 13 Allen, 550;Commonwealth v. Reid, 175 Mass. 325, 328, 56 N. E. 617;Commonwealth v. Galatta, 228 Mass. 308, 311, 117 N. E. 343. If the motion had been seasonably filed, it could not properly have been allowed. The complaint follows the language of St. 1916, c. 290, Laws 1909, c. 534, § 22 (now G. L. c. 90, § 24), and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Jones
...by discovery, it provided sufficient notice to the defendant of the offense with which he was charged. Commonwealth v. Massad, 242 Mass. 532, 533-534, 136 N.E. 615 (1922). Commonwealth v. DiStasio, 294 Mass. 273, 278, 1 N.E.2d 189 (1936). Commonwealth v. Bracy, 313 Mass. 121, 123, 46 N.E.2d......
-
Commonwealth v. Welansky
...19, 75 N.E. 75, 3 L.R.A., N.S., 1019; Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 195 Mass. 100, 105-108, 80 N.E. 799,11 Ann.Cas. 217;Commonwealth v. Massad, 242 Mass. 532, 136 N.E. 615. Beyond that the requirement of particulars or specifications was discretionary. Commonwealth v. King, 202 Mass. 379, 384, ......
-
Commonwealth v. Welansky
...Ed.) c. 277, Section 40. Commonwealth v. Snell, 189 Mass. 12 , 18, 19. Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 195 Mass. 100, 105-108. Commonwealth v. Massad, 242 Mass. 532 . Beyond the requirement of particulars or specifications was discretionary. Commonwealth v. King, 202 Mass. 379 , 384. Commonwealth......
-
Com. v. Joyce
...c. 90, § 24, which describes the offence in question. See Commonwealth v. Horsfall, 213 Mass. 232, 100 N.E. 362; Commonwealth v. Massad, 242 Mass. 532, 136 N.E. 615; Commonwealth v. Nurmi, 250 Mass. 128, 145 N.E. 39; Commonwealth v. Bleakney, 278 Mass. 198, 179 N.E. 400; Commonwealth v. Lew......