Commonwealth v. Saul

• Decision Date: 23 May 1927
• Citation: 260 Mass. 97,156 N.E. 679
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. SAUL.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

260 Mass. 97

156 N.E. 679

COMMONWEALTH

v.SAUL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 23, 1927.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; E. B. Bishop, Judge.

Ruben Saul was convicted of conspiracy to steal property of another, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.

1. Conspiracy k28-confederation to commit crime of larceny will support indictment for conspiracy.

Indictment for conspiracy can be maintained on proof of a combination or confederation between two or more persons to commit the crime of larceny.

2. Conspiracy k48-Defendant, in prosecution for conspiracy to commit larceny, held not entitled to directed verdict because he was not within state during continuance of conspiracy.

In prosecution for conspiracy to commit larceny, evidence showing that conspiracy was planned outside of the commonwealth, though within United States, and that particular defendant was not personally present in the state the continuance of the conspiracy, held not to entitle such defendant to directed verdict of not guilty.

3. Criminal law k112(3)-Prosecution for conspiracy may be maintained in district where illegal design originated, or where overt act was committed.

Prosecution for conspiracy may be instituted in the jurisdiction where the illegal design originated, or, if an overt act in execution of the plan is committed in another jurisdiction, the conspirators can be prosecuted where such act takes place.

4. Criminal law k1066-Where defendant took no exceptions to denial of motion for new trial, no questions of law were before appellate court.

In prosecution for conspiracy, where defendant took no exceptions to denial of motion for new trial, held, no questions of law, even though argued by counsel, were before appellate court.

Daniel J. Lyne, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the commonwealth.

William R. Scharton and Stanley A. Dearborn, both of Boston, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

The indictment on which the defendant was tried and convicted charges that ‘Saul Black and John Doe, whose Christian name and a more particular description of whom is to said jurors unknown, on the first day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, and on divers other days and times between that day and the first day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, conspired together to steal the property, moneys, goods and chattels of the Blodgett-Warren Company, a corporation legally established and existing.’ There was evidence at the trial of the alleged conspiracy which was planned outside of this commonwealth but within the United States, and, although the defendant Black came into this commonwealth and procured the delivery of goods by the Blodgett-Warren Company to a common carrier in Boston for transportation to a company in Philadelphia controlled by the conspirators, the defendant Saul was not personally here during the continuance of the conspiracy. The defendant at the close of the testimony moved that a verdict of not guilty be ordered, ‘on the ground that defendant Saul had not at any time during the conspiracy been present in the commonwealth of Massachusetts and so the court was without jurisdiction over him.’ The court denied the motion and the defendant excepted.

[1][2][3] The ruling was right. It is settled that an indictment for conspiracy can be maintained upon proof of a...