Commonwealth v. Tomaselli
| Decision Date | 24 November 1926 |
| Citation | 257 Mass. 479,154 N.E. 95 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. TOMASELLI. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Criminal Court, Essex County; G. H. W. Hayes, Judge.
Fred Tomaselli was convicted of being an idle and disorderly person, and he excepts. Exceptions overruled.W. G. Clark, Dist. Atty., of Gloucester, and E. F. Flynn, of Lynn, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
James J. Sullivan, of Lawrence, for defendant.
The defendant was convicted of being an idle and disorderly person. The exceptions argued relate to the rulings of the trial judge on questions asked by the defendant's counsel in cross-examination of the witness Kozdras, to the refusal by the judge to give two requests for rulings, and to direct a verdict for the defendant.
[1][2] There was ample evidence to justify the jury in convicting the defendant of the crime charged, and no good purpose would be served in summarizing it. Commonwealth v. Diamond, 248 Mass. 511, 143 N. E. 503. The defendant, in cross-examination of Officer Byron, brought out the fact that he had information, about the idle and disorderly charge, to which he did not testify in direct examination because the evidence would not be competent and it would not be fair to the defendant to state what this information was. The defendant requested the judge to make certain rulings to the effect that evidence that a witness ahd knowledge not imparted to the jury should not be considered by them, that they should ignore any statements of Byron in regard to knowing something about the defendant which it would be unfair to tell, and that they should not consider any inferences from a statement to that effect by the witness. The evidence having been brought out by the defendant and permitted to remain in the case without objection, the defendant was not entitled to these rulings; but the judge gave them, in substance, when he charged the jury that they must decide the case upon the evidence of witnesses on the witness stand and inferences to be drawn from that evidence, and that, if there was something else that might have been stated, they were to draw no inference as to what that might be, because it was not in evidence, but that they were to take what was in evidence and from that and the inferences to be drawn from it, determine the issue. His ruling that the jury might draw inferences from the defendant's acts in determining whether the defendant was an idle...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Dominico
...for their testimony appears to be settled in Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Sacket, 22 Pick. 394 (1839); Cf. Commonwealth v. Tomasselli, 257 Mass. 479, 482--483, 154 N.E. 95 (1926). This comports with the trend in other jurisdictions that cross-examination as to promises of leniency or immu......
-
Alegata v. Com.
...as misspending time by frequenting houses of ill fame, Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 5 Allen, 511; blackmail, Commonwealth v. Tomasselli, 257 Mass. 479, 154 N.E. 95; habitual use of profane language, Commonwealth v. Murray, 14 Gray, 397; prostitution, Commonwealth v. Doherty, 137 Mass. 245; and......
-
Com. v. Santos
...at 321, 94 S.Ct. 1105 (Stewart, J., concurring); Ferrara, supra 368 Mass. at 186-187, 330 N.E.2d 837. See also Commonwealth v. Tomasselli, 257 Mass. 479, 482, 154 N.E. 95 (1926). Each opinion balanced the State's interest in the confidentiality of a witness's juvenile record with the defend......
- Lessard v. Kneeland