Commonwealth v. Ramey
| Decision Date | 05 January 1923 |
| Citation | 137 N.E. 657,243 Mass. 394 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. RAMEY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Louis S. Cox, Judge.
Frank S. Ramey was found guilty of assault with intent to murder, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
The exceptions were to the admission of evidence concerning previous assaults by defendant on the complaining witness and concerning a threat by defendant against the complaining witness.
Endicott P. Saltonstall, Dist. Atty., of Boston, and Raoul H. Beaudreau, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Marlboro, for the Commonwealth.
P. B. Kiernan, of Boston, for defendant.
The defendant was indicted for an assault with intent to murder one Mildred Wannamaker on October 6, 1920. No witness was produced who testified to seeing an assault committed, and she had no recollection of it.
It appears from the record that she left her home about 7:45 o'clock in the morning of October 6, 1920, for the Montrose railroad station in Wakefield, going by way of Montrose avenue. A witness, named Bruorton, testified that as he was driving along that avenue about 8 o'clock in the morning, of the same day, he saw in the middle of the road a woman's shoe, some pieces of blue ostrich plumes, and a pair of woman's gloves, which were identified as those of the person assaulted; that there were many footprints of a man and woman on the road and signs of a struggle; that the bushes were trampled and broken at the side of the road, and her hat was hanging on a wire fence next to the road; that he followed the trail through the bushes which led easterly from the road, and 10 feet therefrom found the other shoe, and 150 feet farther on he found the girl lying on the ground in a pool of blood. The record states that her skull was fractured, and there were marks of injury on her head, face, wrist, throat and mouth. She was unconscious and remained so for over 2 weeks. The defendant worked at a greenhouse situated easterly from Montrose avenue, which is a walking distance of about 18 minutes from the place where the girl was lying. A witness testified that he saw the defendant about 10 minutes before 7 o'clock on the morning of the assault, going in the direction of Montrose avenue. After the assault was committed, but on the same day, Miss Wannamaker's pocketbook, War Savings Stamps and lunch tickets were found in the bushes, ‘strung along in a line’ between the place where she was discovered and the Saugus river, in the direction of the greenhouse. There was evidence that a pocket knife with a gold handle was found after the assault in the defendant's lunch basket, and Miss Wannamaker testified that the knife belonged to one Roger Berry and that she had it up to the time that she could last remember and carried it in her bag. Berry testified that he let her have it 3 or 4 weeks before the date of the assault.
At the trial she was allowed to testify, subject to the defendant's exception, that in the year 1918 about 2 years before the alleged assault she met the defendant on Montrose avenue one night when she was on her way home from work; that just after she passed him he ‘sprung on * * * [her] shoulders and knocked * * * [her] down and he stuck his finger down * * * [her] throat, tried to gag * * * [her] or something, and then he jumped off and ran in the bushes and off in the woods.’ She also testified that some time after this incident, at the same place, she was walking along the street and the defendant threw ‘rocks' at her. This evidence was also admitted subject to the defendant's exception.
The defendant was arrested for the assault first above described. A witness called by the government testified he was in court when the defendant was tried for the earlier assault and that afterwards, while passing along the street in Wakefield, he heard some boys talking to the defendant and heard the latter say, This evidence was admitted subject to the defendant's exception.
All the foregoing testimony was admitted by the court solely to show the state of mind of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Bartolini
...of this evidence appear to have been asked for. On this point the case is within the authority of various decisions. Commonwealth v. Ramey, 243 Mass. 394, 137 N.E. 657, and cases cited. Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 119 Mass. 354;Commonwealth v. Holmes, 157 Mass. 233, 32 N.E. 6,34 Am.St.Rep. 27......
-
Commonwealth v. Cheng
...he was anxious to have Dulong submit to an operation to procure a miscarriage, Commonwealth v. Corkin, 136 Mass. 429;Commonwealth v. Ramey, 243 Mass. 394, 137 N.E. 657, that his purpose in bringing her to Cheng was to have Cheng treat her; and that he was willing to instigate a plan in whic......
-
Commonwealth v. Rubin
...Aldrich v. Aldrich, 215 Mass. 164 , 170, 171. Robinson v. Doe, 224 Mass. 319 , 323. Commonwealth v. Russ, 232 Mass. 58 , 72. Commonwealth v. Ramey, 243 Mass. 394 . Commonwealth v. Gettigan, 252 Mass. 450, 458. Gould Kramer, 253 Mass. 433 , 438. Commonwealth v. Kosior, 280 Mass. 418, 422. Sh......
-
Com. v. Cordle
...the part of the defendant toward the [victim], and was evidence of a motive on [her] part to commit the crime." Commonwealth v. Ramey, 243 Mass. 394, 396, 137 N.E. 657 (1923). Evidence of threats, without more, however, is not sufficient to uphold a murder conviction. See Commonwealth v. Ab......