Commonwealth v. Truczinskas

• Decision Date: 15 May 1945
• Citation: 318 Mass. 298,61 N.E.2d 241
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. MARTIN TRUCZINSKAS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

318 Mass. 298

61 N.E.2d 241

COMMONWEALTH v. MARTIN TRUCZINSKAS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

May 15, 1945

May 9, 1945.

Present: FIELD, C.

J., LUMMUS, DOLAN WILKINS, & SPALDING, JJ.

Husband and Wife. Evidence, Presumptions and burden of proof. Words "Money."

Testimony by a woman, complainant under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 273, Section 1 as amended by St. 1939, c. 177, Section 1, alleging nonsupport by her husband, that for six months prior to the complaint she "didn't get any money" from him warranted a finding that he provided her no support during that period.

Under the provisions of Section 7 of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 273, proof of neglect by a husband to make reasonable provision for the support of his wife was sufficient to warrant a conviction of nonsupport under Section

1, as amended although no evidence was offered of his ability to provide for her.

COMPLAINT, filed in the District Court of Southern Norfolk on September 23, 1944.

On appeal to the Superior Court, the case was tried before Hayes, J., a District Court judge sitting under statutory authority.

In this court the case was submitted on briefs. P. A. Sykes, for the defendant.

E. R. Dewing, District Attorney, & E.

P. Shaw, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

DOLAN, J. The complaint against the defendant in this case is that during the six months next before the making of the complaint "being of sufficient ability," he did unreasonably neglect to provide for the complainant, his lawful wife, against the peace of the Commonwealth and "the form of the statute in such case made and provided." ^[1] The complaint is dated September 23, 1944. Having been found guilty in the District Court, the defendant appealed and the case was tried to a jury who returned a verdict of guilty. The case comes before us on the defendant's exception to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict.

The Commonwealth introduced evidence which would have warranted the jury in finding the following facts: The complainant, Julia Truczinskas, and the defendant were married on or about April 29, 1916.

Two sons were born to them, one of whom is married. The other is now in the military service. The complainant and the defendant have been separated for about two years. The complainant had been working but ceased to be employed in August, 1944, because of illness which later necessitated an operation. She is fifty-six years old. For six months prior to the complaint she "didn't get any money" from the defendant. Her rent is $25 a month and she receives $3 a week from each of two boarders. One of the boarders is her grandchild and the other is a man whom her husband invited. The complainant was the only witness presented by the Commonwealth. She was not cross-examined and the Commonwealth rested at the conclusion of her testimony. The defendant also rested and filed a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty which was denied by the judge, and the defendant duly excepted.

The defendant contends that the mere proof of nonreceipt of money from the defendant for the support of the complainant during the period involved is not sufficient to warrant a finding...