Commonwealth v. McGarty
| Citation | 82 N.E.2d 603,323 Mass. 435 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. CHARLES A. MCGARTY. |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1948 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
October 25, 1948.
Present: QUA, C.
J., LUMMUS, RONAN WILKINS, & WILLIAMS, JJ.
Homicide. Practice Criminal, Medical expense.
Evidence Admissions and confessions, Photograph, Irresponsive answer. Words, "Extreme atrocity or cruelty.
"
No error appeared in the exercise of discretion in the denial of a motion by a defendant charged with murder that medical experts be engaged for him, where it appeared that physicians who had examined him under G. L.
(Ter. Ed.) c. 123 Section 100A, had, reported that he was neither feeble minded nor insane, but that he had a psychopathic personalty, and there was nothing in the record before this court indicating that the defendant was not mentally responsible.
The reported evidence at the trial of an indictment charging murder did not as a matter of law require a finding that a confession of the defendant was the product of duress, threats or promises, and the confession properly was admitted in evidence.
No error appeared in the admission in evidence, at the trial of an indictment charging a man with murder of a girl eight years of age, of photographs of the whole body of the victim, although she was killed by choking, where there was evidence also warranting a finding of rape or of an indecent assault.
Testimony of a medical expert at the trial of an indictment charging a man with murder of a girl eight years of age warranted a finding that the victim was raped while she was still alive.
An exception to the admission of an answer of a witness on the ground that it was not responsive to the question asked could not be sustained where the answer gave competent testimony and no motion to strike it out was made by the excepting party.
At the trial of an indictment charging a man with murder of a girl eight years of age, evidence of throttling, of repeated blows in her face, and of a rape or an indecent assault warranted a finding that the murder was committed with such extreme atrocity or cruelty as to make it murder in the first degree.
On the evidence, at the trial of an indictment charging a man with murder of a girl eight years of age, no error appeared in an instruction to the jury that, if their verdict should be "murder in the second degree, that verdict" would "announce that" they "did not believe that this was a murder deliberately premeditated" or "committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty" or "committed during the commission or attempted commission of rape."
INDICTMENT, found and returned on November 12, 1947. The case was tried before Hurley, J.
J. S. Seligman, (W.
C. Crossley with him,) for the defendant.
J. E. Lajoie, District Attorney, (W.
J. Fenton, Assistant District Attorney, with him,) for the Commonwealth.
The defendant was found guilty in the first degree of the murder of his sister's eight year old daughter, Theresa Lafleur in Fall River on the evening of August 4, 1947. The case comes here on his appeal, with an assignment of seven errors and a transcript of the evidence.
The girl was missed, and her father learned that she had gone to walk with the defendant. With a friend, one Lima, the father searched for the defendant and the girl with an automobile. They finally found the defendant, who said that he had left the girl at the junction of two streets, whence she intended to go to his brother's house. Later he admitted that he had killed the girl. The father then notified the Fall River police, who searched for the body of the girl during the night, and found it early in the morning of August 5, on Tom Mix's hill, in rough country.
The defendant testified, and did not deny the killing. He testified that he grabbed the girl by the throat. He testified that he told the police where to find the body, close to a big rock. In his argument, counsel for the defendant argued in favor of a conviction of murder in the second degree.
A medical expert, who examined the body, testified that the girl had died from strangulation and injury to her brain, that her genital organs were torn and bleeding, and that in the blood were found spermatozoa and a pubic hair of an adult, which corresponded with pubic hairs cut from the person of the defendant. He testified that the facts found on his examination were consistent with rape.
The first error assigned is the denial by the judge of the defendant's motion to engage medical experts for him. It appeared that the defendant was intemperate, had been arrested for drunkenness, and had been drinking to excess shortly before the crime. The two physicians who examined him under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 123, Section 100A, reported that he is neither feebleminded nor insane, but has a psychopathic personality. We assume that the judge could have granted the motion under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 277, Section 56. But the matter was discretionary. Nothing in the medical report and nothing in the record indicated that the defendant was not mentally responsible. We find no error in the denial of the motion. Commonwealth v. Belenski, 276 Mass. 35 , 44.
The second error assigned is the admission in evidence of certain admissions and a confession made by the defendant. Sergeant Patry of the Fall River police testified in substance as follows. The defendant said he walked from Theresa's house with her to Fourth Street where he gave her twenty-five cents and told her to go to his brother's house. But later the defendant told Sergeant Patry that he killed her, and that her body was at Tom Mix's hill. The defendant said, "I don't want to get beaten up," and the sergeant answered, "We don't operate that way," and told him he had nothing to fear. The defendant said that he took Theresa's "panties" off. He said he grabbed her by the throat and choked her. He said he had torn her clothes and ripped her pants off and inserted his finger in her vagina and had done damage there, in order to make it appear to be a sex crime and to divert suspicion from himself. The defendant accompanied the police in the search for the body, and told them where to find it. He said he held the girl on the ground with one hand while he hit her in the face with the other. He said that before he met Theresa he had conceived the idea of killing one of the Lafleur children, because of a grudge he had against their father.
About noon on August 5, 1947, the defendant signed a written confession after reading it, and after being told that he need make no statement except of his own will. In his written confession he said that he took Theresa to walk into the woods at Tom Mix's hill, and there choked her, took her clothes off, hit her in the face several times, and forced his finger into her. He denied any sexual intercourse with her. In the process he got blood on his collar from her mouth. He said he killed Theresa for revenge against her father, and that he formed the purpose to kill her when he saw her playing at her house.
Prima facie, a confession is voluntary and admissible. Commonwealth v. Congdon, 265 Mass. 166 , 174. Commonwealth v. Clark, 292 Mass. 409 , 411. No assurance was given to the defendant except that he would not be beaten, and that assurance was not made conditional upon his confessing the crime. Before making his signed confession, the defendant was told that he was being given no promise or reward, but was asked to make a statement of his own free will, with the understanding that whatever he might say would be used against him. He declared that he understood that. It would be difficult to find in the evidence any support for an argument that his confession was other than voluntary. Surely a finding that it was the product of duress, threats or promises was not required. It was properly admitted in evidence and considered by the jury.
The third assignment of error was to the admission in evidence of photographs of the dead body of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Hall
...it is clear that under Massachusetts law a defendant's confession was presumed to have been given voluntarily, Commonwealth v. McGarty, 323 Mass. 435, 438, 82 N.E.2d 603 (1948), and that the burden was upon the defendant to rebut this presumption. Commonwealth v. Sheppard, 313 Mass. 590, 60......
-
Com. v. Tavares
...committed with such savagery and brutality as to constitute murder committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty). Commonwealth v. McGarty, 323 Mass. 435, 440, 82 N.E.2d 603 (1948) ("Repeated violent blows have been held to evince such ferocity as would warrant a finding of extreme atrocity or......
-
Com. v. Bonomi
...The fact itself was competent and material. See Berlandi v. Commonwealth, 314 Mass. 424, 452, 50 N.E.2d 210; Commonwealth v. McGarty, 323 Mass. 435, 439-440, 82 N.E.2d 603; Commonwealth v. Taylor, 327 Mass. 641, 649, 100 N.E.2d Assignments 21 and 22 (exceptions 26, 27, and 28). The same wit......
-
Com. v. Gould
...committed with such savagery and brutality as to constitute murder committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty); Commonwealth v. McGarty, 323 Mass. 435, 440, 82 N.E.2d 603 (1948) ("Repeated violent blows have been held to evince such ferocity as would warrant a finding of extreme atrocity an......