Commonwealth v. Robinson

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtLUMMUS
Citation295 Mass. 471,4 N.E.2d 300
Decision Date28 October 1936
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. ROBINSON.

295 Mass. 471
4 N.E.2d 300

COMMONWEALTH
v.
ROBINSON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Oct. 28, 1936.


John H. Robinson was convicted by a judge without a jury a foregoing and uttering as true a forged check, and of larceny, and he appeals with assignments of error.

Affirmed.

[4 N.E.2d 301]

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Dowd, Judge.
John H. Robinson, pro se.

J. B. Davidson, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the Commonwealth.


LUMMUS, Justice.

The defendant was indicted for the forgery of a check, and in a second count for the uttering and publishing as true of a forged check. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 267, §§ 1, 5. Another indictment charged him with larceny. His plea was not guilty in each case. On February 6, 1936, he waived trial by jury under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 263, § 6, was tried by a justice of the superior court, and was found guilty on each indictment. The defendant conducted his own defence, and took no exceptions. On the same day the indictment for larceny was placed on file, and he was sentenced on the other indictment to imprisonment in the state prison for not less than three nor more than five years, the sentence to take effect from and after the expiration of earlier sentences.

On February 10, 1936, acting pro se, the defendant petitioned for the suspension of the execution of the sentence. St.1934, c. 205, § 1, St.1935, c. 358, amending G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 279, § 1. On the same day, purporting to act under G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 278, § 33B, he filed pro se a claim of appeal from the finding of guilty in each case. The summary of the record prepared by the clerk under section 33C does not show, as it should, that the judge ordered the trial made subject to G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 278, §§ 33A to 33G, but the order appears in the transcript of the evidence certified by the stenographer under section 33A. See Ansara v. Regan, 276 Mass. 586, 591, 592, 177 N.E. 671. On February 10, 1936, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, assigning six grounds, all of which could have been taken at the trial. Commonwealth v. Polian, 288 Mass. 494, 501, 502, 193 N.E. 68, 96 A.L.R. 615;Commonwelath v. Di Stasio (Mass.) 1 N.E.(2d) 189. We assume in favor of the defendant that his petition for suspension and his motion for a new trial were denied. At some time not shown by the record he filed what he called a ‘bill of exceptions,’ which contained no statement of facts or evidence, but purported merely to take a general exception to the denial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Com. v. Dietrich
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 4 Septiembre 1980
    ...the consequences of his choice. See, e. g., United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355 (D.C.Cir.1975). See also Commonwealth v. Robinson, 295 Mass. 471, 473, 4 N.E.2d 300 (1936). Rather, Dietrich claims that he waived his right to a jury trial in reliance on the weakness of the government's case ......
  • Commonwealth v. Boris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 1 Diciembre 1944
    ...the evidence upon which an assignment of error is based must be made a part of the record. See section 33D. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 295 Mass. 471, 4 N.E.2d 300;Dolan v. Commonwealth, 304 Mass. 325, 334, 23 N.E.2d 904. The fifth assignment of error of Marcus and the first assignment of err......
  • In re Di Leo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 30 Octubre 1936
    ...the case be recommitted to the Industrial Accident Board for the purpose of taking evidence to determine whether ‘the Veterans Bureau [4 N.E.2d 300]Hospital in Rutland, where the work was performed and the contract of hire with the employee made, is the same property referred to in’ St.1922......
  • Com. v. Crowell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 29 Abril 1964
    ...that the action of the judge was eminently just. We disregard the "bill of exceptions" which was never allowed (Commonwealth v. Robinson, 295 Mass. 471, 472-473, 4 N.E.2d 300) and the "assignment of errors" which does not relate to any exception saved by the defendant. Commonwealth v. Gray,......
4 cases
  • Com. v. Dietrich
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 4 Septiembre 1980
    ...the consequences of his choice. See, e. g., United States v. David, 511 F.2d 355 (D.C.Cir.1975). See also Commonwealth v. Robinson, 295 Mass. 471, 473, 4 N.E.2d 300 (1936). Rather, Dietrich claims that he waived his right to a jury trial in reliance on the weakness of the government's case ......
  • Commonwealth v. Boris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 1 Diciembre 1944
    ...the evidence upon which an assignment of error is based must be made a part of the record. See section 33D. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 295 Mass. 471, 4 N.E.2d 300;Dolan v. Commonwealth, 304 Mass. 325, 334, 23 N.E.2d 904. The fifth assignment of error of Marcus and the first assignment of err......
  • In re Di Leo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 30 Octubre 1936
    ...the case be recommitted to the Industrial Accident Board for the purpose of taking evidence to determine whether ‘the Veterans Bureau [4 N.E.2d 300]Hospital in Rutland, where the work was performed and the contract of hire with the employee made, is the same property referred to in’ St.1922......
  • Com. v. Crowell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 29 Abril 1964
    ...that the action of the judge was eminently just. We disregard the "bill of exceptions" which was never allowed (Commonwealth v. Robinson, 295 Mass. 471, 472-473, 4 N.E.2d 300) and the "assignment of errors" which does not relate to any exception saved by the defendant. Commonwealth v. Gray,......

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