Commonwealth v. Vandenhecke

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: CROSBY
• Citation: 248 Mass. 403,143 N.E. 337
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. VANDENHECKE.
• Decision Date: 08 April 1924

248 Mass. 403
143 N.E. 337

COMMONWEALTH
v.
VANDENHECKE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

April 8, 1924.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Essex County; Geo. A. Flynn, Judge.

Cyrille J. Vandenhecke was found guilty of murder in the first degree, and brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

Wm. [248 Mass. 404]G. Clark, Dist. Atty., of Gloucester, for the commonwealth.

John P. Kane, of Lawrence, for defendant.

CROSBY, J.

This is an indictment upon which the defendant has been found guilty of murder in the first degree. The case is before us on exceptions to the exclusion of evidence, to the refusal of the presiding judge to rule that the evidence did not warrant a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, and to the findings of thr trial judge on the motion for a new trial, which motion was denied. These exceptions will be considered in the order of presentation.

1. The indictment charged the defendant with the murder of Gislain Shureman. Sophie Shureman, wife of the deceased, was the only witness who testified that she saw the defendant shoot the deceased. During her cross-examination by the defendant's counsel she was asked, ‘Did you know a man named Hector Sorling?’ Her answer was ‘Yes.’ She was then asked, ‘Did he live with you?’ This question, upon objection of the district attorney, was excluded, subject to the defendant's exception. The defendant offered to prove that the witness had lived with Sorling for some time before she married Shureman, and contended that the evidence was admissible to show that she was a woman of an adulterous disposition and that she had left her husband and gone away with the defendant voluntarily. It was offered for the purpose of affecting her credibility as a witness, and was inadmissible. The rule is well established that the fact that a female witness is a prostitute or keeps a house of ill fame is not admissible to impeach her. That question was settled in this commonwealth in the case of Commonwealth v. Churchill, 11 Metc. 538,45 Am. Dec. 229. See, also, Commonwealth v. Grose, 99 Mass. 423;Commonwealth v. Howard, 205 Mass. 129, at page 153,91 N. E. 397.

[248 Mass. 405]In this commonwealth and in certain other jurisdictions, it is provided by statute that the conviction of a witness of a crime may be shown to affect his credibility, by the introduction of the record. G. L. c. 233, § 21. Rittenberg v. Smith, 214 Mass. 343, 101 N. E. 989,47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 215,Commonwealth v. Cohen, 234 Mass. 76, 125 N. E. 148. The exception to the exclusion of the evidence must be overruled.

2. At the close of the evidence the defendant requested the trial judge to rule that the evidence did not warrant a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. There was evidence that, while living with her husband, Sophie Shureman worked in a mill as a weaver, and during that time formed the acquaintance of the defendant, who was employed in the same mill as a loom fixer; that they walked to and from their work...