Commonwealth v. De Vico
| Decision Date | 03 January 1911 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. DE VICO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Michael J. Dwyer, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
E. M Shanley, for defendant.
The defendant was indicted for an assault with a dangerous weapon. There was a verdict of guilty an the case is here on the defendant's exceptions to the exclusion by the presiding justice of the following questions: 'Is he [meaning the defendant] a man that becomes excited quickly?' 'Is he a man of excitable disposition?' and 'Is he a man of quarrelsome nature?' The witness who was the defendant's employer and who was called by him, was asked by the defendant what his (the defendant's) general reputation for peacefulness was, and answered: He was then permitted to testify without objection that the defendant worked every day from 7 in the morning to a quarter past 6 at night and that he never saw him drink. He was then asked without objection, 'Is he a quarrelsome man?' and he answered, 'Not in my place.' The defense was that the defendant acted in self-defense. He so testified in effect. But manifestly the fact that he was of an excitable disposition had no tendency to show that he acted in self-defense. The most that it would tend to show would be that he might have acted more hastily and have been more easily provoked than would have been the case with a man of cooler temperament. But that would have had no tendency to show that he was acting in self-defense. If the offer had been to show that his alleged assailant had the reputation of being a quarrelsome man, the evidence would have been admissible. Com. v. Tircinski, 189 Mass 257, 75 N.E. 261, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 102. But what the defendant offered to show was that he himself was of an excitable disposition, which as we have said had nothing to do with the question whether he acted in self-defense. As to the question whether he was a man of a quarrelsome nature it perhaps would be enough to say that the same question, with a trifling variation in form, had been previously put and answered without objection, and the question to the exclusion of which exception was taken might well have been ruled out for that reason. But we prefer to rest our decision on the broader ground that, while the defendant in a criminal case may put in his good...
To continue reading
Request your trial