Commonwealth v. Szczepanek

Citation126 N.E. 847,235 Mass. 411
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. SZCZEPANEK.
Decision Date01 April 1920
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Essex County; Webster Thayer, Judge.

Antonio J. Szczepanek was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.

1. CRIMINAL LAW k1167(2)-DEFENDANT HELD NOT ENTITLED TO COMPLAIN OF DENIAL OF MOTION TO REQUIRE ELECTION.

Where the circumstances and testimony were relevant to prove that both of two murders charged were committed by defendant to destroy evidence of his commission of the crime of larceny at the time, he cannot complain of the trial court's denial of his motion to order the district attorney to elect on which count, of the indictment in two counts, each charging one of the murders, he would go to trial.

2. CRIMINAL LAW k531(3)-CONFESSION NOT CONCLUSIVELY INADMISSIBLE, BECAUSE MADE IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF OFFICER.

The facts that defendant was in custody, and that he was questioned by a police officer in the presence of other officers at the police station, do not conclusively prove that his confession was procured by inducements engendering either hope or fear.

3. CRIMINAL LAW k531(1, 3)-CONFESSION TO PERSON IN AUTHORITY, THOUGH INDUCED BY SOLICITATION PRIMA FACIE VOLUNTARY.

A confession made to a person in authority, though induced by his solicitation and inquiry, is prima facie voluntary, and the person objecting to its admission must show that it was made under such pressure of hope or fear as to reflect on its accuracy.

4. CRIMINAL LAW k518(1), 531(2)-FACT OF WARNING TO DEFENDANT IMPORTANT TO SHOW CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY.

Though a confession otherwise relevant does not become irrelevant because defendant was not warned, he was not bound to make it, and that the evidence might be used against him, the fact of warning is important evidence to show the confession was voluntary.

5. CRIMINAL LAW k518(4)-CONFESSION NOT INVOLUNTARY, BECAUSE MADE WITHOUT FRESH ADMONITION.

Where defendant was arrested for murder, and admonished by a police officer that any statement he would make could be used against him, it cannot be assumed that the warnings of the officer were not present in defendant's memory and recalled by him, when his confession was obtained later in another town, where he was still under arrest without any such admonition.

Henry G. Wells, of Haverhill, for the Commonwealth.

T. S. Herlihy, of Newburyport, for defendant.

PIERCE, J.

The defendant was indicted for murder in two counts. The first count charged him with the murder of Annie Spiewak, and the second with the murder of Wladislaw Bill. He was convicted of murder in the first degree under each count of the indictment. The case is before this court on two exceptions taken by the defendant during the course of the trial. The first exception is to the denial by the trial judge of a motion of the defendant to order the district attorney to elect which count of the indictment he would go to trial on. The second exception is to the admission by the trial judge of an alleged confession by the defendant, at the police station at Newburyport, while he was in the custody of the police.

[1] As to the first exception : In Carlton v. Commonwealth, 5 Metc. 532, at page 534, it was said by Shaw, C. J.:

We think it is common in practice, in this commonwealth, and especially in the county of Suffolk, to include several distinct substantive offenses in the same indictment, where they are of the same general nature, and where the mode of trial and the nature of the punishment are the same. And we see no objection to this course; because it is always competent for the court to order-where there are several counts which might tend to perplex the defendant in his defense-that the prosecutor shall elect on which of the counts he will bring the defendant to trial, so as to exempt him from the vexation of meeting multifarious charges at one and the same time.’

To the same effect see Commonwealth v. Miller, 150 Mass. 69, 70, 22 N. E. 434, and Commonwealth v. Rosenthal, 211 Mass. 50, 97 N. E. 609, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 955, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1003.

While the counts in the case at bar charged distinct crimes of murder, the facts, circumstances and testimony were relevant to prove that both felonies were committed by the defendant at substantially the same time with a design and purpose to destroy evidence of the defendant's commission of the crime of larceny at that time. In the circumstances of this case it is plain the defendant could not be vexed in the procedure of his trial or prejudiced by the introduction of the same testimony upon both counts. It follows that he can have no just complaint because of the denial of his motion to order the district attorney to elect which count he would go to trial on.

[2][3][4][5] The second exception is to the admission of the defendant's confession at the police station, in Newburyport, upon the ground that the state police officer, Griffin, having the defendant in custody did not warn him--

‘that anything he might say would be used against him until after he had made the damaging admission that he had struck Mrs. Spiewak with the axe.’

There is no evidence that the defendant made his confession as the result of any inducement, threat or promise which was calculated to excite hope or fear in respect to the proceedings. When arrested at Easthampton, the officer--

‘told him that he knew we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Gallo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1931
    ...tried at one time. Carlton v. Commonwealth, 5 Metc. 532;Lebowitch v. Commonwealth, 235 Mass. 357, 363, 126 N. E. 831;Commonwealth v. Szczepanek, 235 Mass. 411, 126 N. E. 847;Commonwealth v. Slavski, 245 Mass. 405, 411, 140 N. E. 465, 29 A. L. R. 281, and cases cited. People v. Northcott, 20......
  • Commonwealth v. Slavski
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1923
    ...v. Bishop, 165 Mass. 148, 42 N. E. 560;In re Lebowitch, Petitioner, 235 Mass. 357, 363, 126 N. E. 831;Commonwealth v. Szczepanek, 235 Mass. 411, 126 N. E. 847;Commonwealth v. Dyer, 243 Mass. 472, 138 N. E. 296. See Castro v. The Queen, 6 App. Cases, 229, and Rex v. Thompson, [1914] 2 K. B. ......
  • Com. v. Beaulieu
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1956
    ...police officers, of what Boisvert told them, was admissible, Commonwealth v. Jokinen, 257 Mass. 429, 154 N.E. 189; Commonwealth v. Szczepanek, 235 Mass. 411, 126 N.E. 847, and discussion under section V We do not consider in this connection what the officers testified the other defendants, ......
  • Com. v. Burke
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1961
    ...534; Commonwealth v. Nickerson, 5 Allen, 518, 529; Commonwealth v. Dyer, 243 Mass. 472, 509-510, 138 N.E. 296; Commonwealth v. Szczepanek, 235 Mass. 411, 412, 126 N.E. 847. See Commonwealth v. Edds, 14 Gray, 406, 410; Commonwealth v. Ismahl, 134 Mass. 201, 202; Commonwealth v. Lowrey, 158 M......
  • 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