Commonwealth v. Peterson
| Decision Date | 23 November 1926 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. PETERSON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County.
Edward B. Peterson was convicted of assaulting and beating another, thereby killing him, and he appeals. Judgment to stand.W. J. Patron and F. D. McCarthy, both of Boston, for appellant.
A. K. Reading, Dist. Atty., and S. H. Lewis, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Boston, for the Commonwealth.
[1] The facts which lead to the indictment, as told by the defendant and his witnesses, in substance are as follows. On the evening of December 24, 1925, the defendant, with his brother, was driving an automobile, and approached the intersection of River street and Putnam avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts. At the same time a team driven by one Kelley came into River street. The defendant was able to stop in season to avoid a collision with the team. The driver of the team drove to the side of the road and stopped there. The defendant got out of the automobile and went over to where the team was with Kelley seated in it. A wordy altercation followed between the defendant and Kelley as to whether Kelley had had the right of way and the automobile was lighted. While this talk was going on one John H. Manning, somewhat ‘unbalanced’ in his walk, came from the sidewalk and began an argument, or attempted to argue, with the defendant in support of the position taken by Kelley, that Kelley's team had the right of way. The defendant protested that it was none of his (Manning's) business, saying, ‘Go ahead, it is none of your business at all, don't interfere.’ During the talk the defendant ‘backed up a little bit and turned.’ Manning ‘cursing and swearing’ followed, striking the defendant twice ‘on the chest.’ The defendant then advanced a foot or so and struck Manning ‘on the side of the face.’ Manning fell ‘in a crunch’ to the ground striking his head on the ground or on the curbstone and subsequently died as a result of this blow.
The defendant and his brother testified that they picked Manning up, that he needed assistance, that they stood him up on the sidewalk and after two minutes drove away. Later the same evening the defendant was taken to the hospital where Manning was and there had a conversation with the sergeant in whose custody he was. The defendant offered to testify that the sergeant had said to him in substance that--
‘He had talked with Dr. Turner and Dr. Turner had pronounced the injured man, Manning, as an alcoholic.’
The evidence was excluded rightly. The sergeant had testified that he had the following conversation with Dr. Turner in the presence of the defendant:
All the evidence which would flow from the offered testimony as is seen was already in evidence, and the defendant had no reason to think that the story of the conversation with the doctor testifying in behalf of the commonwealth would be claimed by the government to be false and fabricated in the interest of the defendant.
[2] The second assignment of errors is based upon the allowance in cross-examination of the defendant of the question which follows:
‘Now he was so unsteady that you could have stolen off or very quietly set him on the sidewalk and walked away, couldn't you?’
The force of the question seems to have been lost in discussion with the court on the rights and limitations of the plea of self-defense, all of which were in no way germain to the point in issue. The question was proper not alone because it was put in cross-examination of the witness, but because it served to test the testimony of the defendant that Manning was unbalanced in his walk, the degree of it, and ultimately, as bearing upon the question whether the defense to the blows of Manning required blows in return.
[3] The third, fourth and fifth exceptions all relate to questions on cross-examination intended to show the state of mind of the defendant toward Kelley and Manning which influenced his speech and action at the time he struck Manning. This examination was clearly within the discretion of the trial judge, and there is nothing in the record which discloses unfairness in its exercise or any abuse of it. Commonwealth v. Schaffner, 146 Mass. 512, 16 N. E. 280;Commonwealth v. Brady, 147 Mass. 583, 18 N. E. 568;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Garcia
...367 Mass. 508, 326 N.E. 880 (1975). Commonwealth v. Houston, 332 Mass. 687, 690, 127 N.E.2d 294 (1955). Commonwealth v. Peterson, 257 Mass. 473, 478, 154 N.E. 260 (1926). Commonwealth v. Woodward, 102 Mass. 155, 161 (1869). In addition, he charged the jury that "the burden of proof does not......
-
Com. v. Bastarache
...the appropriate standard, and the charge may have been more favorable to the defendant than it had to be. In Commonwealth v. Peterson, 257 Mass. 473, 478, 154 N.E.2d 260 (1926), another case of nondeadly force causing death, the court stated, in what is also a dictum, that a "defendant cann......
-
Com. v. Shaffer
...proper means to avoid physical combat.' Commonwealth v. DeCaro, 359 Mass. 388, 390, 269 N.E.2d 673, 674 (1971). Commonwealth v. Peterson, 257 Mass. 473, 478, 154 N.E. 260 (1926); Commonwealth v. Trippi, 268 Mass. 227, 232, 167 N.E. 354 (1929); Commonwealth v. Houston, 332 Mass. 687, 690, 12......
-
Commonwealth v. Rubin
...to the contrary. But the question was for the jury. Commonwealth v. Barnacle, 134 Mass. 215, 45 Am.Rep. 319;Commonwealth v. Peterson, 257 Mass. 473, 478, 154 N.E. 260;Monize v. Begaso, 190 Mass. 87, 89, 76 N.E. 460;Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 41 S.Ct. 501, 65 L.Ed. 961, 18 A.L.R. ......