Commonwealth v. Runge

Citation121 N.E. 499,231 Mass. 598
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. RUNGE.
Decision Date06 January 1919
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions and Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Wm. F. Dana, Judge.

Harry L. Runge was convicted of having unlawfully held himself out as a practitioner of medicine, and he excepts and appeals. Exceptions overruled so far as the first, and sustained so far as the second, complaint is concerned, and entry of waiver of appeal ordered.

A. C. Webber, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the Commonwealth.

John P. Feeney, of Boston, for defendant.

LORING, J.

These were two complaints, the second complaint charging the defendant with having unlawfully held himself out ‘as a practitioner of medicine’ (in violation of R. L. c. 76, § 8), between March 3, 1915, and August 3, 1915. At the trial the government did not put in evidence any such act between the dates named. But it did introduce evidence of one such act on February 21, 1914, and of another on February 12, 1915. The presiding judge instructed the jury that, if the defendant held himself out as a practitioner of medicine upon any occasion preceding the date alleged in the complaint and within a period of six years next before that date they could find the defendant guilty. To this ruling the defendant took the exceptions which are now before us.

[1] The offense created by R. L. c. 76, § 8, may be committed by a single act or by a series of continuous acts; that is to say, it may consist of a single offense or of a continuing offense. In the case at bar the government elected to charge the defenant with a series of acts committed between March 3, 1915, and August 3, 1915, which constituted the continuing offense of illegally holding himself out as a practitioner of medicine. When a defendant is charged with a series of acts as a continuing offense, the offense charged is a single indivisible offense and a part of the description of the offense charged is the duration of time during which it is charged in the indictment the series of acts took place. That was decided in Com. v. Robinson, 126 Mass. 259, 30 Am. Rep. 674. In that case the defendant was complained of for keeping a liquor nuisance between January 1 and August 20. He pleaded in bar that he had been acquitted on a complaint charging him with having kept the same illegal liquor nuisance from January 1 to May 28. It was held that the acquittal was a bar. The decision was made on the ground that a continuing offense for a period named is one indivisible offense, and since the defendant in the case then before the court had theretofore been acquitted of the offense for a portion of the time in question on the later charge he had been acquitted of the offense later charged. It follows from this that the duration of time specified in case of a continuing offense is a part of the description of the offense charged. It is for this reason that evidence of acts committed outside the time specified are not admissible in evidence. Com. v. Briggs, 11 Metc. 573;Com. v. Purdy, 146 Mass. 138, 15 N. E. 364;Com. v. Fuller, 163 Mass. 499, 500, 40 N. E. 764. The learned district attorney has argued that this has been changed by section 10 of the act for the simplification of criminal pleading (St. 1899, c. 409), now R. L. c. 218, § 20. But that section does not apply where ‘it [time] is an essential element of the crime.’ He has argued also that Com v. Peretz, 212 Mass. 253, 98 N. E. 1054, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 484, is authority for his contention that the rule as to continuing offenses was changed by the act for the simplification of criminal pleading. But the decision in Com. v. Peretz, was not founded upon section 10 of the original act, now R. L. c. 218, § 20, but upon section 5 of the original act, now R. L. c. 218, § 34. What was decided in Com. v. Peretz was that an indictment charging a defendant with a continuing offense during a time part of which was before the acts charged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Town of Hudson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 29 Diciembre 1943
  • Com. v. Stasiun
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 22 Abril 1965
    ... Page 672 ... 206 N.E.2d 672 ... 349 Mass. 38 ... COMMONWEALTH ... Ernest C. STASIUN et al ... Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol ... Argued Nov. 2, 1964 ... Decided April 22, 1965 ... Peretz, 212 Mass. 253, 254, 98 N.E. 1054 (deriving support from earnings of a prostitute), and Commonwealth v. Runge, 231 Mass. 598, 600, 121 N.E. 499 (practising medicine unlawfully). In such cases, if a continuing crime is charged, it is the general practice, ... ...
  • Commonwealth v. Town of Hudson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 29 Diciembre 1943
    ... ... time. See Commonwealth v. Connors, 116 Mass. 35; ... Commonwealth v. Robinson, 126 Mass. 259; ... Commonwealth v. Dunster, 145 Mass. 101; ... Commonwealth v. Goulet, 160 Mass. 276; ... Commonwealth v. Peretz, 212 Mass. 253 , 254; ... Commonwealth v. Runge, 231 Mass. 598 ...        Of course ... attachment of the person is impossible in the case of a ... municipality or other corporation. But like other ... corporations, a town or city may be fined for contempt in ... disobeying a decree. Marson v. Rochester, 112 App. Div. (N ... Y.) ... ...
  • Com. v. Douglas
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 3 Mayo 1968
    ... Page 865 ... 236 N.E.2d 865 ... 354 Mass. 212 ... COMMONWEALTH" ... Jack DOUGLAS et al ... Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk ... Argued March 4, 1968 ... Decided May 3, 1968 ...     \xC2" ... The evidence was relevant. See Commonwealth v. Stasiun, 349 Mass. 38, 46--47, 206 N.E.2d 672. Cf. Commonwealth v. Runge, 231 Mass. 598, 600, 121 N.E. 499 ...         The somewhat ambiguous evidence of Edwin Small concerning a 1966 loan to him by Alexander ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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